Ex Parte Vanman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

12780092 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121780,092 05/14/2010
120607 7590 06/01/2016
Winstead PC (IF)
P.O. Box 131851
Dallas, TX 75313-1851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert V. Vanman
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
47565-P001C4 9942
EXAMINER
DIEP, NHON THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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 1
Appeal2015-001269
Application 12/780,092
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 47, 49-59, and 61-70, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 1--46, 48, 60, and 71-7 4 have
been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify "Enforcement Video, LLC, d/b/a Watchguard Video"
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-001269
Application 12/780,092
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to "a video surveillance system."
Spec. i-f 2. According to the Specification, archiving of audio data, video
data, and metadata is initiated with optional error checking. Spec. i-f 42.
"[A] verification of environmental factors is performed in order to insure
that environmental conditions are acceptable for recording data . . . . The
environmental factors can include, for example, temperature, shock, and
vibration measurements." Spec. i-f 43.
THE INVENTION
Claim 47 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
4 7. A method of archiving data, the method comprising:
receiving data;
storing the data on a first data storage medium;
selecting a portion of the data;
determining if at least one environmental factor indicates
that environmental conditions are acceptable for storing the
selected portion of the data on a second data storage medium;
responsive to a determination that the at least one
environmental factor indicates that environmental conditions are
acceptable, storing the selected portion of the data on the second
data storage medium; and
responsive to a determination that the at least one
environmental factor indicates that environmental conditions
are not acceptable, delaying storing the selected portion of the
data on the second data storage medium until the environmental
conditions are acceptable.
2
Appeal2015-001269
Application 12/780,092
The Examiner's References and Rejections
Claims 47, 50-52, 55-59, 62---64, and 67-70 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rayner (US 6,389,340 Bl;
May 14, 2002). Final Act. 2--4.
Claims 49, 53, 54, 61, 65, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rayner and Brailean et al.
(US 7,373,395 B2; May 13, 2008 (filed Jan. 31, 2005)) ("Brailean").
Final Act. 4--6.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
"[T]he Examiner's statement and proposed obviousness rationale
[from page 4 of the Final Office Action] are contrary to the express
teachings of Rayner." App. Br. 7.
"Rayner fails to disclose" the disputed limitation of claim 4 7 and a
similar limitation of claim 59. App. Br. 8.
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4--8)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-5), the issue presented on appeal is whether
the Examiner erred in finding Rayner's storage of data in response to
determining that acceleration data satisfies a predetermined threshold
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claims 4 7 and 59. Final Act. 4.
3
Appeal2015-001269
Application 12/780,092
ANALYSIS2
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 4--9; Reply Br. 2-5. We
disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2---6), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants'
Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-15). We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments below.
Claims 47, 48, 50-52, 55-60, 62-24, and 67-70
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Rayner teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation recited in claim 47. App. Br. 4--8. As
Appellants acknowledge, Rayner generally relates to a self-contained
vehicle-mounted device for capturing video imagery in response to a
triggering event, such as a sudden change in acceleration indicative of an
impending collision. App. Br. 5. Appellants argue if there is no triggering
event (e.g., a sudden change in acceleration), there is no selection of data for
storage. App. Br. 7. In other words, Appellants contend, "[u]ntil an
impending collision is detected, it is not known what data will be stored;
therefore, there can be no 'delaying' of storing 'selected data' until a
triggering event is detected." App. Br. 7.
Appellants' contention that Rayner fails to teach the disputed
limitation is unpersuasive because Appellants do not address the Examiner's
2 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
July 7, 2014); the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed October 14, 2014); the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed October 10, 2013); and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed on September 10, 2014).
4
Appeal2015-001269
Application 12/780,092
findings. At the outset, we note Appellants' argument is not commensurate
with the scope of claim 4 7, and thus, for that reason, does not persuade us of
error in the Examiner's rejection. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon
for patentability). Claim 47 does not require the existence of a prior
triggering event before a delayed storage of a selected portion of data.
Contrary to Appellants' argument, claim 4 7 recites "responsive to a
determination that the at least one environmental factor indicates that
environmental conditions are not acceptable, delaying storing the selected
portion of the data." (Emphasis added). Further, Claim 47 does not require
the existence of future triggering event if the storage of a selected portion of
data is delayed. Contrary to Appellants' argument, claim 4 7 recites
"responsive to a determination that the at least one environmental factor
indicates that environmental conditions are not acceptable, delaying storing
the selected portion of the data until the environmental conditions are
acceptable." (Emphasis added). We interpret "until the environmental
conditions are acceptable" includes the possibility the environmental
conditions are never acceptable in the future.
Rayner teaches writing incoming digitized data signals from
accelerometers or G-force sensors (40, 42) to DRAM (38) in a continuous-
loop scheme. Rayner, col. 4, 11. 12-21. Rayner's continuous-loop scheme
suggests the digitized data signals written to DRAM (38) reflect an "amount
of time data can be recorded before the previously-entered data are
overwritten." Rayner, col. 5, 11. 35-37. For example, Rayner's device "will
typically store ... acceleration data, for a total of 20 seconds of event
history." Rayner, col. 5, 11. 39--41.
5
Appeal2015-001269
Application 12/780,092
part:
Columns 4 and 5 of Rayner, relied on by the Examiner, disclose, in
CPU 34 monitors the digitized signals representing the
acceleration data to which G-force sensors 40 and 42 are
responsive. If CPU 34 determines that the acceleration data
exceed a predetermined threshold that is believed to be indicative
of a collision or other event that would warrant investigation, it
copies data from the buffer memory to a more permanent non-
volatile memory 56, such as Flash memory. Memories 38 and
56 thus together define a two-tier system, in which the first tier
records data in a continuous loop fashion, and the second tier
provides more permanent storage for data in the first tier in
response to a triggering event.
Rayner, col. 4, 1. 57---col. 5, 1. 1. Rayner teaches CPU (34) monitors the
sensors' (40, 42) digitized data signals written to DRAM (38) in the
continuous loop fashion discussed supra. Rayner's CPU (34) determines
whether a change in the digitized data signals, representing acceleration
data; exceeds a predetermine threshold. Rayner teaches that the acceleration
data not exceeding the predetermine threshold indicates the environmental
conditions are not acceptable for storage to non-volatile memory (56).
As the Examiner explains, if Rayner's acceleration data does not
exceed the predetermined threshold, Rayner teaches "to delay or wait for the
next second or next few seconds for the acceleration to reach the
predetermined threshold before storing the selected portion of the data to the
permanent non-volatile memory 56." Final Act. 4. Thus, we agree Rayner
teaches or suggests, responsive to a determination that a predetermined
threshold (the claimed "at least one environmental factor") indicates that
environmental conditions are not acceptable, delaying storing the digitized
data signals written to DRAM (38) in the continuous loop fashion (e.g., 20
6
Appeal2015-001269
Application 12/780,092
seconds of event history) (the claimed "selected portion of the data") on
non-volatile memory (56) (the claimed "second data storage medium") until
the environmental conditions are acceptable.
Additionally, Appellants contend, for the first time in the Reply Brief,
the Examiner's finding appearing at page 4 of the Final Office Action that
"Rayner would wait" if the specified condition is not satisfied is an
unfounded assumption that is contrary to Rayner's disclosure that "at least
some of the approximately 20-second buffer would be overwritten during
the wait." Reply Br. 3 (citing Rayner, col. 4, 11. 9-20 and 64---66; col. 5, 11.
37--41 ). This argument is untimely and waived. See Ex parte Borden,
93USPQ2d1473, 1474 (BPAI2010) (informative) ("[T]hereplybrief[is
not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the
principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.").
Further, for the reasons discussed supra, the argument is unpersuasive.
Thus, for the reasons discussed supra, we find Rayner teaches or
reasonably suggests the disputed limitation recited in claim 47.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 47.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 59, and of dependent claims 50-52, 55-58, 62---64, and 67-70, which
were not argued separately. App. Br. 8.
Claims 49, 53, 54, 61, 65, and 66
For similar reasons as discussed supra, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 49, 53, 54, 61, 65, and 66,
which were not argued separately. App. Br. 9.
7
Appeal2015-001269
Application 12/780,092
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 47, 49-59, and
61-70.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8