Ex Parte Zaitsev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2018

14461216 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/461,216 08/15/2014
55128 7590 08/13/2018
LENOVO-JVL
C/0 LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Grigori Zaitsev
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.
RPS920140182-US-NP 9543
EXAMINER
YANG, WEI WEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2018 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):
LESLIE@VL-PATENTS.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GRIGORI ZAITSEV, ROD D. W ALTERMANN,
JOAQUIN F. LUNA, and BRIAN A. BURDETTE
Appeal2018-001973
Application 14/461,216 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JASON J. CHUNG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-11, and 13-20. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. LTD. is the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 5 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 13.
Appeal2018-001973
Application 14/ 461,216
INVENTION
The invention is directed to detecting motion using statistical noise
analysis. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. A machine-implemented method comprising:
calculating reference statistics related to one or more noise
characteristics that correspond to a plurality of pixels in a first set
of a plurality of video images of an area being monitored;
receiving current noise characteristics that correspond to
the plurality of pixels in a second set of one or more video images
of the area being monitored, wherein the first set of video images
were captured before the second set of video images; and
detecting a motion in the area being monitored by
comparing the reference statistics to the current noise
characteristics.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE3,4
Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Uchida et al. (US 2012/0275655 Al;
published Nov. 1, 2012). Final Act. 4--7.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Uchida and Lee et al. (US
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should evaluate claims 1-
20 in light of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v.
Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In Digitech,
the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to organizing and manipulating
information through mathematical correlations are patent ineligible.
4 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should evaluate claims
15-20 in light of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Ex parte Mewherter, I 07 USPQ2d
1857 (PT AB 2013) (precedential). We note that Appellants' Specification
specifically states "[a] computer readable storage medium may be,for
2
Appeal2018-001973
Application 14/ 461,216
2010/0027898 Al; published Feb. 4, 2010) (hereinafter Lee '898). Final
Act. 7-9.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Uchida, Lee '898, and Lee et al. (US
2011/0150271 Al; published June 23, 2011). Final Act. 9-11.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Uchida and Dollar et al. (US
2014/0341474 Al; filed Nov. 20, 2014). Final Act. 11-12.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not
to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Uchida discloses images including frame n and
frame n-1, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "a first set of a
plurality of video images" recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Ans. 12 (citing
Uchida, Figs. 1 and 14). In addition, the Examiner finds Uchida discloses a
single image of frame n, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "a
second set of one or more video images" recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Ans. 12 (citing Uchida, Figs. 1 and 14). Moreover, the Examiner finds
Uchida discloses frame n and frame n-1 occur before frame n, which the
Examiner maps to the limitation "wherein the first set of video images were
example, but not limited to" ( emphasis added) a variety of hardware
components. Spec. ,r 8.
3
Appeal2018-001973
Application 14/ 461,216
captured before the second set of video images" recited in claims 1, 8, and
15. Ans. 14--15.
Appellants argue Uchida fails to disclose the limitation "wherein the
first set of video images were captured before the second set of video
images" recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 because claims 1, 8, and 15 recite two
distinct sets of video images such that one set is captured before the other
set. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants further argue one cannot
consider Uchida's frame n as being in both sets of video images because
Uchida's frame n cannot be captured before itself. App. Br. 6-7. We agree
with Appellants.
As an initial matter, because claims 1, 8, and 15 recite "wherein the
first set of video images were captured before the second set of video
images" ( emphasis added), we construe these claims as requiring a plurality
of video images were captured before the second set of video images. In
particular, "the first set of video images" that are recited as being "captured
before the second set" has antecedent basis in "a first set of a plurality of
video images" ( emphasis added). Therefore, claim 1 's disputed limitation
would read as "wherein the first set of [the plurality of] video images were
captured before the second set of video images" ( emphasis added).
In the present case, the cited portions of Uchida relied upon by the
Examiner disclose a single image (i.e., frame n-1) being captured before "a
second set of one or more video images" (i.e., the Examiner maps Uchida's
frame n to this quoted limitation). However, when considering the
Examiner's mapping of Uchida to the independent claims, there is an
overlap of Uchida' s "frame n" in both "a first set of a plurality of video
images" and "a second set of one or more video images." Therefore, Uchida
4
Appeal2018-001973
Application 14/ 461,216
fails to disclose "wherein the first set of [the plurality of] video images were
captured before the second set of video images" ( emphasis added) for the
reasons stated above.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of:
(1) independent claims 1, 8, and 15; and (2) dependent claims 2--4, 6, 7, 9-
11, 13, 14, and 16-20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-11, and
13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l).
REVERSED
5