INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2021

2020005639 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 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.
16/055,131 08/05/2018 Lee A. Carbonell CHA920130021US02_8134-200 2946
112978 7590 06/18/2021
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, FOLASHADE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2021 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEE A. CARBONELL, TSZ S. CHENG,
JEFFREY L. EDGINGTON, and PANDIAN MARIADOSS

Appeal 2020-005639
Application 16/055,131
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BETH Z. SHAW, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–29. See Final Act. 8. 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 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as IBM
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005639
Application 16/055,131

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to automating floor-level retail operation
decisions using video analysis. Spec ¶ 1. This video analytics technology
prevents an employee at a typical retail location (e.g., grocery store,
department store, etc.) from having to physically walk to an area (e.g., shelf,
display, storeroom, etc.) in order to check the availability or price of an item.
Spec. ¶¶ 2–6.
Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
21. A computer-implemented method performed within a
floor operations automation system having a plurality of video
cameras mounted to a ceiling mounted track located within a
physical site, comprising:
receiving, as an event and by the automation system, a
request to verify stock of an item;
determining, using the event and a profile associated with
the item, a location of the item within the physical site;
directing, using a track diagram of the ceiling-mounted
track and a planogram of the physical site, one of the plurality
of cameras towards the location of the item;
obtaining video analytics data pertaining to the location
of the item;
analyzing the video analytics data to determine a number
of the items at the location;
comparing the number of items to a minimum number of
items indicated within the profile; and
forwarding, based upon the comparison, a time-stamped
picture of the location to an initiator of the request to verify
stock of the item.

Claims App’x. 19.

Appeal 2020-005639
Application 16/055,131

3
REJECTION
Claims 21–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Groenovelt et al. (US 2009/0063307 A1, published Mar. 5,
2009) (“Groenovelt”). Final Act. 8.

OPINION
The Examiner rejects claims 21–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Groenovelt. Final Act. 8. Appellant argues the rejection of
claims 21–29 based on independent claim 21. Appeal Br. 8 (“claims 22–29
stand or fall together with independent claim 21”).
The Examiner finds that Groenovelt discloses the elements of claim
21, including: “[a] computer-implemented method performed within a floor
operations automation system having a plurality of video cameras mounted
to a ceiling-mounted track located within a physical site” and “directing,
using a track diagram of the ceiling-mounted track and a planogram of the
physical site, one of the plurality of cameras towards the location of the
item.” Ans. 4–5, 13–15; Final Act. 8–9. We agree with Appellant, however,
that the cited portions of Groenovelt do not disclose all of the limitations
arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim. In particular,
the cited portions of Groenovelt do not disclose “directing, using a track
diagram of the ceiling-mounted track and a planogram of the physical site,
one of the plurality of cameras towards the location of the item,” as recited
in claim 21.
Rather, the cited portions of Groenovelt disclose “the image capture
devices may comprise relatively mobile (potentially wireless) still image or
video cameras mounted on any of a number of movable objects including,
Appeal 2020-005639
Application 16/055,131

4
but not limited to, fixed tracks that guide movement of the image capture
devices, shopping or stocking carts, or even persons moving about the
inventory environment.” Groenovelt ¶ 19. On this record, the Examiner does
not explain sufficiently how this fixed track constitutes “a ceiling-mounted
track,” let alone “directing, using a track diagram of the ceiling-mounted
track and a planogram of the physical site, one of the plurality of cameras
towards the location of the item,” as recited in the claim. We agree with
Appellant that the passages in Groenovelt refer to positions or orientations of
products, not directing cameras using a track diagram of a ceiling-mounted
track. See Groenovelt ¶¶ 19, 23. Unless Groenovelt discloses not only all of
the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined
in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. See Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed.
Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. For the same
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 22–29.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 21–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–29 102 Groenovelt 21–29

REVERSED