Ex Parte Zaitsev et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 9, 201814461216 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation