Ex Parte Vanman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201712779564 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation