Ex Parte Vanman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

12779564 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/779,564 05/13/2010 Robert V. Vanman 47565-P001C2 8780
120607 7590
Winstead PC (IF)
P.O. Box 131851
Dallas, TX 75313-1851
03/29/2017 EXAMINER
DIEP, NHON THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ifdocket @ winstead. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT V. VANMAN and SIMON C. GOBLE
Appeal 2016-001533
Application 12/779,5641
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5—11, 14—17, and 75.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention concerns a video surveillance system for
producing a permanent digital evidentiary record. Responsive to detection
of at least one external start trigger, a chapter start point is created in video
data, at a point in the video data corresponding to a specified time preceding
1 The real party in interest is Enforcement Video, LLC.
2 Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 18—74 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2016-001533
Application 12/779,564
the detected external start trigger. The method further includes initiating
recording of video data beginning at the (selected) point. Responsive to
detection of at least one stop trigger, a chapter stop point is created at a point
in the video data corresponding to a specified time preceding the at least one
detected stop trigger. Spec. H 2, 5.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A video-data chapter segmentation method comprising:
monitoring for at least one external start trigger;
responsive to detection of at least one of the at least one
external start trigger, creating a chapter start point at a point in
the video data corresponding to a specified time preceding the at
least one detected external start trigger, wherein the specified
time preceding the at least one detected external start trigger
comprises a non-zero time period;
initiating recording of the video data beginning at the point
in the video data;
monitoring for at least one stop trigger; and
responsive to detection of at least one of the at least one
stop trigger, creating a chapter stop point at a point in the video
data corresponding to a specified time following the at least one
detected stop trigger, wherein the specified time following the at
least one detected stop trigger comprises a non-zero time period.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9—11, 14, and 75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Klein and Rayner.
Claims 6—8 and 15—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Klein, Rayner, and Dow.
Klein
Dow
Rayner US 6,389,340 B1 May 14, 2002
US 2004/0080615 A1 Apr. 29, 2004
US 2004/0221311 A1 Nov. 4, 2004
2
Appeal 2016-001533
Application 12/779,564
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed June 29, 2015), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 6,
2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sept. 11, 2015) for their
respective details.
ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Klein and Rayner teach or suggest a video
start point at a specified time preceding at least one detected external start
trigger, or a video stop point corresponding to a specified time following at
least one detected stop trigger?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1,2,5,9-11,14, and 75
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Klein in
combination with Rayner does not teach or suggest a start point at a
specified time preceding the at least one detected external start trigger, or a
stop point corresponding to a specified time following the at least one
detected stop trigger (as recited in representative claim 1), because Klein
fails to disclose a “specified time preceding” or “specified time following.”
See App. Br. 8—10.
We agree with the Examiner that Klein discloses a video module that
records video images in response to a signal generated by the event
scheduling module. See Ans. 3^4; Klein | 8. Klein discloses that “event
generation module 22 through the action handler 66, upon detection of an
alarm event, may . . . instruct the video management unit 45 to commence
3
Appeal 2016-001533
Application 12/779,564
recording of the video feed for future references.” Klein 136 (emphasis
omitted). We do not agree with Appellants that Klein simply fails to
“disclose specifying zero time periods” and thus that “there is no specified
‘zero time period’ to ‘increase’ . . . ”. App. Br. 9. Klein discloses video
recording with a start point essentially contemporaneous with the time of
receipt of an external start trigger; put another way, Klein discloses video
recording with a start point zero seconds preceding said external start
trigger. See Ans. 16. In a similar fashion, Klein discloses a recording stop
point essentially contemporaneous with a detected stop trigger.
The Examiner concedes that Klein does not disclose that the specified
time preceding the at least one external start trigger comprises a non-zero
time period or that the specified time following the at least one detected stop
trigger comprises a non-zero time period. See Ans. 4. We agree with the
Examiner’s further finding, uncontested by Appellants, that Rayner supplies
the teaching of a start point corresponding to a (non-zero) specified time
preceding a detected external start trigger, as well as the concept of a stop
point corresponding to a (non-zero) specified time subsequent to a detected
stop trigger, conceded to be absent from Klein. See Ans. 4—5; Rayner col.
5:8—22. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been
obvious to modify the contemporaneous start/stop of recording of Klein by
including the preceding time period and/or following time period of Rayner,
to provide the advantage of recording video corresponding to the moments
before and/or after important events such as accidents. See Ans. 5.
We find that the Examiner did not err in combining Klein and Rayner
to arrive at the invention recited in representative claim 1. We sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 9—11, 14, and 75.
4
Appeal 2016-001533
Application 12/779,564
Claims 6-8 and 15-17
Appellants rely on the same arguments made with respect to
independent claims 1 and 10. We find Appellants’ arguments for claims 6—8
and 15—17 unpersuasive for the same reasons expressed with respect to
independent claims 1 and 10 supra. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claims 6—8 and 15—17 over Klein, Rayner, and Dow.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Klein and Rayner fairly suggests a video start
point at a specified time preceding at least one detected external start trigger,
or a video stop point corresponding to a specified time following at least one
detected stop trigger.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5—11, 14—17, and 75 is
affirmed.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5