GOOGLE LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 19, 2021

2020001443 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2021)

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.
15/613,013 06/02/2017 Jason N. Laska 1333-125US03 5854
98449 7590 07/19/2021
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
WERNER, DAVID N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2021 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON N. LASKA, WEI HUA,
PRATEEK REDDY, AKSHAY R. BAPAT, and
LAWRENCE W. NEAL

Appeal 2020-001443
Application 15/613,013
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001443
Application 15/613,013

2

INVENTION
The claimed invention generally relates to automated video analysis
conducted in connection with video surveillance. Spec. ¶¶ 3–4. The purpose
of this automated video analysis is to reduce the amount of video that is of
little interest to a human reviewer. Id. Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are on
appeal. Claim 1 is representative of the invention, and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
at a camera device having an image sensor, one or more
processors, and memory:
capturing a plurality of video frames via the image
sensor, the plurality of video frames corresponding to a scene in
a field of view of the camera device;
sending the video frames to the remote server
system in real-time;
while sending the video frames to the remote server
system in real-time:
determining that motion has occurred within
the scene;
in response to determining that motion has
occurred within the scene, characterizing the motion as a motion
event; and
generating motion event metadata for the
motion event, the motion event metadata identifying one more
video frames associated with the motion event; and
sending the generated motion event metadata to the
remote server system concurrently with the video frames.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphases added).

Appeal 2020-001443
Application 15/613,013

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Xu et al. (US 2008/0181453 A1; published July 31, 2008) (“Xu”) and
Laganiere et al. (US 2012/0195363 A1; published Aug. 2, 2012)
(“Laganiere”). Final Act. 4–6.
Claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–14, 16, and 18–20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Xu, Laganiere, and Aviv (US 6,028,626; published
Feb. 22, 2000) (“Aviv”). Final Act. 6–7.

Rejection of Claim 1, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Xu and
Laganiere

The Examiner’s Findings Regarding Xu and Laganiere

The Examiner finds that the combination of Xu and Laganiere teaches
or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 8–9.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Xu teaches a digital camera 25, such as
a webcam, that is capable of capturing video frames and sending them
digitally to a personal computer 27 over a network 35 in real-time. Final Act.
4, citing Xu, Fig. 2, ¶¶ 36–37, 43. The Examiner maps these findings to the
limitations:
at a camera device having an image sensor, one or more
processors, and memory; capturing a plurality of video frames
via the image sensor, the plurality of video frames corresponding
to a scene in a field of view of the camera device; sending the
video frames to the remote server system in real-time.

Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds further that Xu teaches a blob-based
tracker 45, which tracks the movement of blobs over time, while analyzing
successive video frames received from the digital camera 25. Final Act. 5,
Appeal 2020-001443
Application 15/613,013

4
citing Xu ¶ 64. The Examiner maps these findings to the limitation “while
sending the video frames to the remote server system in real-time:
determining that motion has occurred within the scene.” Final Act. 5. The
Examiner also finds that in Xu, varying “attention levels” are assigned,
based on the type of movement that is detected in the blobs, and maps this
teaching to the limitation “in response to determining that motion has
occurred within the scene, characterizing the motion as a motion event.”
Final Act. 5, citing Xu ¶¶ 52–61. Lastly, with respect to Xu, the Examiner
finds that Tables 1–2 teach feature sets and parameters applied to the blobs
during this analysis, and maps these teachings to the limitations “generating
motion event metadata for the motion event, the motion event metadata
identifying one more video frames associated with the motion event.” Final
Act. 5, citing Xu Tables 1–2.
The Examiner concedes that Xu fails to teach or suggest the limitation
“sending the generated motion event metadata to the remote server system
concurrently with the video frames,” finding that
[t]he claimed invention differs from Xu in that in the claimed
invention, the generated motion event metadata is generated at
the camera and sent to the remote server system concurrently
with the video frames, while in Xu, the remote PC 27 performs
the tracking as it receives the video frames from the camera.

Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that Laganiere cures this deficiency,
teaching “a real-time capable video analytics system that receives video data
at a source end, and pre-processes the video data at the source end using
video analytics before it transmits the pre-processed video data.” Final Act.
5, citing Laganiere, Fig. 4, ¶ 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have
Appeal 2020-001443
Application 15/613,013

5
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “at the time of filing2 to
modify the Xu [method] to perform object tracking at the camera as pre-
processing before transmitting the video data to the server rather than at the
server, as taught by Laganiere.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this
modification in order to realize “known advantages such as flexibility of
changing required analytics and moving and adding cameras.” Final Act. 5,
citing Laganiere ¶¶ 4–6. The Examiner also finds that Laganiere suggests
“real-time pre-processing [of video frames] during streaming.” Ans. 9, citing
Laganiere ¶ 4.

Appellant’s Contentions

Appellant first contends that “Xu does not teach or suggest doing
anything ‘while sending the video frames to the remote server in real-time.’”
Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also contends that Laganiere teaches “pre-
processing video data at the camera then sending the pre-processed video
data to the server,” and therefore does not teach or suggest the limitations:
while sending the video frames to the remote server system in
real-time: . . . characterizing the motion as a motion event; and
generating motion event metadata for the motion event, the
motion event metadata identifying one more video frames
associated with the motion event; and sending the generated
motion event metadata to the remote server system concurrently
with the video frames.

Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 6–7, citing Laganiere, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 4, 24.

2 The Examiner did not establish when the “invention was made.” The
pertinent time in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is “before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Appeal 2020-001443
Application 15/613,013

6
Analysis

We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Laganiere states
explicitly that “when ‘smart’ cameras and encoders process images at the
edge, they record or transmit only important events.” Laganiere ¶ 4.
Laganiere explains that “[a] major obstacle to the adoption of cloud
computing for video analytics has been the inability to transmit the video
data across the WAN to the centralized video analytics processing resources,
due to the limited bandwidth of the WAN.” Laganiere ¶ 24. Accordingly,
Laganiere is directed to “methods and systems . . . in which pre-processing
of video data using video analytics at the source end is performed to reduce
the amount of video data being sent to the centralized video analytics
processing resources via the WAN.” Id.; see also id. ¶ 34. While Laganiere
teaches that its system “issue[s] alerts or take[s] other actions when specific
types of events occur, thereby speeding real-time security response”
(Laganiere ¶ 4), which the Examiner finds “teaches or suggests real-time
processing during streaming,” we do not find that this generalized statement
about system performance contradicts Laganiere’s clear teachings regarding
the video analytic and streaming functions of the camera itself.
Accordingly, we find that Laganiere teaches or suggests a method whereby
the video frames are first analyzed, then subsequently sent to a remote server
system; there is no teaching or suggestion of concurrent video transmission
and frame analysis.
Xu suggests the concurrence of video frame analysis while sending
video frames from its camera to its remote server, though it does not so state
explicitly. See Xu ¶ 43 (discussing various known methods of real-time
video analysis). Therefore, we disagree with Appellant that “Xu does not
Appeal 2020-001443
Application 15/613,013

7
teach or suggest doing anything ‘while sending the video frames to the
remote server in real-time.’” However, Xu is silent as to any problems with
or benefits that accrue from simultaneously analyzing and streaming video
frames. Presumably, this is due to the fact that Xu is silent as to whether its
camera is capable of video analysis at all. In other words, Xu is silent about
problems with or benefits resulting from concurrent video analysis and
streaming because it is incapable of performing video analysis prior to video
streaming.
The Examiner cannot “stitch together an obviousness finding from
discrete portions of prior art references without considering the references
as a whole.” In re Enhanced Security Research, LLC, 739 F.3d 1347, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2014). The Examiner has not established why one of ordinary
skill in the art looking to modify Xu with the teachings of Laganiere would
have both: (1) chosen to conduct the video frame analysis at the camera as
taught by Laganiere, and (2) chosen to stream video frames from the camera
to the remote server concurrently with this analysis as taught by Xu. When
looking at the teachings of Xu and Laganiere, one having ordinary skill in
the art would have seen problems with a concurrent analysis/streaming
approach (the strain on network bandwidth associated with real-time
streaming of video frames), would not have seen any benefits stemming
from this concurrent approach, while seeing only one solution to the
problems (conducting analysis prior to streaming video frames).
“The question in a section 103 case is what the references would
collectively suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Ehrreich, 590
F.2d 902, 908-09 (CCPA 1979). Accordingly, when combining Xu and
Laganiere, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
Appeal 2020-001443
Application 15/613,013

8
conduct the video frame analysis prior to sending the video frames to the
remote server, not conduct both processes simultaneously. We, therefore,
are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9, and 15 as
obvious over the combination of Xu and Laganiere.

Rejection of Claims 3, 8, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Xu and
Laganiere

The Examiner rejects dependent claims 3, 8, 11, and 17 over Xu and
Laganiere. Final Act. 6. Claims 3 and 8 depend from claim 1, claim 11
depends from claim 9, while claim 17 depends from claim 15. Appellant
does not make additional arguments for claims 3, 8, 11, and 17. Appeal Br.
11–13; Reply Br. 6–7. Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 8, 11, and 17 for the same reasons as
discussed above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15.

Rejection of Claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–14, 16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Xu, Laganiere, and Aviv

The Examiner rejects dependent claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–14, 16, and 18–
20 over Xu, Laganiere, and Aviv. Final Act. 6–7. Claims 2 and 4–7 depend
from claim 1, claims 10 and 12–14 depend from claim 9, while claims 16
and 18–20 depend from claim 15. While Appellant makes additional
arguments for claims 6–7, 13–14, and 19–20, these claims depend from
independent claims 1, 9, and 15, respectively, discussed above. Appeal Br.
11–13; Reply Br. 6–7. Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4–7, 10, 12–14, 16, and 18–20 for the
same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 15.
Appeal 2020-001443
Application 15/613,013

9
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 8, 9,
11, 15, 17
103 Xu, Laganiere 1, 3, 8, 9,
11, 15, 17
2, 4–7, 10,
12–14, 16,
18–20
103 Xu, Laganiere,
Aviv
2, 4–7, 10,
12–14, 16,
18–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED