Kofax, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2021

2020005365 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
15/396,306 12/30/2016 Jan W. Amtrup KFX1P078 5305
145143 7590 10/29/2021
Zilka-Kotab, PC- Kofax
1155 N. 1st St.
Suite 105
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
EXAMINER
CHAUDHURI, ANITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2021 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):
chrisc@zilkakotab.com
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAN W. AMTRUP, JIYONG MA,
STEPHEN MICHAEL THOMPSON, ALEXANDER SHUSTOROVICH
CHRISTOPHER W. THRASHER, and ANTHONY MACCIOLA
____________________

Appeal 2020-005365
Application 15/396,3061
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, MARC S. HOFF, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s claimed invention is a device, method, and computer
program product for real time video data processing. An image processing
server is configured to process, in real time, input streamed to the server

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Kofax, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appeal 2020-005365
Application 15/396,306

2
from a mobile device, the input comprising one or more frames of digital
video data. The server outputs the result of processing the input to the
mobile device. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An image processing server, comprising at least one
processor, and logic configured, upon execution thereof by the
processor, to cause the server to:
process, in real time, input streamed to the server from a mobile
device, the input comprising one or more frames of digital video
data; and
output a result of processing the input to the mobile device.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Martins US 2003/0179294 A1 Sept. 25, 2003
Choi et al.
“Choi”
US 2004/0071311 A1 Apr. 15, 2004
Chang et al.
“Chang”
US 2004/0125877 A1 July 1, 2004
Conning US 2004/0250205 A1 Dec. 9, 2004
Vertegaal US 2006/0093998 A1 May 4, 2006

Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Conning.
Claims 2, 10, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Conning, Chang, and Martins.
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Conning and Chang.
Claims 4, 6, 11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Conning and Choi.
Appeal 2020-005365
Application 15/396,306

3
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Conning and Martins.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Conning, Choi, and Vertegaal.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Conning and Vertegaal.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Conning, Chang, Martins, and Choi.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed [date]), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed [date]), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed [date]) for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does Conning teach streaming input to the server from a mobile
device?
2. Does Conning teach processing input, which comprises one or more
frames of digital video data, in real time?
ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, an image processing
server configured to “process, in real time, input streamed to the server from
a mobile device, the input comprising one or more frames of digital video
data.”
Independent claims 8 and 16 recite analogous limitations.
Appellant argues that Conning does not teach an image processing
server configured to process input streamed to the server from a mobile
device. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that Conning’s teaching of
Appeal 2020-005365
Application 15/396,306

4
transferring image data from a camera to a client computer and uploading
image data from the client computer to a server does not correspond to the
claimed “streaming.” Id. Appellant argues that no disclosure in Conning
teaches “streaming input comprising one or more frames of video data to a
server from a mobile device. Conning exclusively discusses uploading
photos to a computer then transferring to the server.” Appeal Br. 9–10. In
the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that Conning’s transfer of image data
cannot correspond to the claimed streaming because Conning transfers the
image data via an intermediary client computer. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s Specification does not provide its own definition of
“streamed” or “streaming.” The Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines the
verb “to stream” as “to transfer data continuously, beginning to end, in a
steady flow.”3 Conning teaches that photographic images captured by the
camera 106 or camera phone 105 are downloaded to client computer 102,
and are transmitted from client computer 102 to a web application server
computer 104 over network 110. Conning ¶ 22, 25. Conning further teaches
that at the server, such images are composed into a webpage, and “the
process streams the resulting HTML out to the calling web browser.”
Conning ¶ 68. We further observe that Conning teaches that the photographs
can be digital still photos, frames of digital video, or other types of digital
image. Conning ¶ 23.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant endeavors to distinguish streaming (a
term used in the claims under appeal) from downloading and uploading
(terms used in Conning). Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant asserts that where

3 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition (2002), p. 499.
Appeal 2020-005365
Application 15/396,306

5
streaming “involves continuous flow of data from a source to a destination,
where the data are immediately utilized,” uploading and downloading “refer
to network-based data transfer involving a copy of a data file.” Id. Assuming
arguendo that Appellant’s definitions comport with knowledge in the art, we
do not perceive a conflict between the terms “streaming” and
uploading/downloading. Even under Appellant’s definitions, uploading and
downloading may occur by streaming. Appellant has not identified
disclosure in Conning that indicates that the uploading and downloading
disclosed in Conning fail to operate in a manner consistent with the concept
of “streaming.”
Appellant’s Reply Brief argument that Conning fails to teach the
claimed streaming because of the use of an intermediary computer is
similarly unpersuasive. Reply Br. 4. Appellant acknowledges that the claims
do not recite that the input is streamed directly to the server from a mobile
device. Id. Appellant nevertheless insists that the Examiner erred because
the claims do not recite any intermediary for the streamed input. Id.
However, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Conning teaches
streaming input that originates from a mobile device and reaches the
destination of a server. See Final Act. 2, citing Conning Fig. 2.
Appellant also argues that Conning does not teach processing input
streamed to the server “in real time.” Appellant urges that “real time” must
be construed as expressed in paragraph 77 of the Specification, i.e., “the
amount of time required to complete a given processing operation on a given
frame of the video data is less than or equal to the amount of time that
elapses between capturing two successive frames of the video data.” Appeal
Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Conning teaches that “incremental changes
Appeal 2020-005365
Application 15/396,306

6
are immediately applied and available without a separate publishing step.”
Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted), citing Conning ¶ 64. We agree with the
Examiner that Appellant has broadly claimed “in real time” without
including the Specification’s example definition in the claim language, and
Conning teaches that “all pages served are served dynamically from the
latest data” “without a separate publishing step.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
Construing the claims in light of the Specification and its definition of “real
time,” we nevertheless agree with the Examiner that Conning’s teaching that
“incremental changes are immediately applied” does not conflict with the
time periods expressed in the definition. Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellant
did not provide evidence that the Specification definition is not satisfied by
Conning’s teaching that the changes are immediately applied, and thus did
not rebut the Examiner’s reasonable finding. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1255 (CCPA 1977). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Conning
teaches processing, in real time, input streamed to the server from a mobile
device.
Appellant further argues in the Reply Brief that processing HTML
representing video data does not correspond to the claimed processing of the
input, as opposed to processing the raw digital video data. We are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred. Conning is directed to assembling
collections of images (e.g. still photos, digital video frames) into rendered
web pages. Conning teaches streaming those rendered web pages
“immediately” and “without a separate publishing step.” Conning ¶ 64.
Appellant relies on the claim 1 arguments in arguing for the
patentability of independent claims 8 and 16. We are thus similarly
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8 and 16.
Appeal 2020-005365
Application 15/396,306

7
Because we find that the Examiner did not err, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 as being anticipated by
Conning.
Section 103 rejection of Claims 2–7, 10–15, and 18–20
Appellant does not separately argue for the patentability of these
dependent claims, relying instead on the arguments made for the
patentability of independent claims 1, 8, and 16. As explained supra, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of those claims. Therefore, and for
the same reasons given supra, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 10,
14, 18, and 19 over Conning, Chang, and Martins; of claims 3 and 13 over
Conning and Chang; of claims 4, 6, 11, and 20 over Conning and Choi; of
claim 5 over Conning and Martins; of claim 7 over Conning, Choi, and
Vertegaal; of claim 12 over Conning and Vertegaal; and of claim 15 over
Conning, Chang, Martins, and Choi.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Conning teaches streaming input to the server from a mobile
device.
2. Conning teaches processing input, which comprises one or more
frames of digital video data, in real time.
Appeal 2020-005365
Application 15/396,306

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 9, 16,
17
102(a)(1) Conning 1, 8, 9,
16, 17

2, 10, 14,
18, 19
103 Conning, Chang,
Martins
2, 10, 14,
18, 19

3, 13 103 Conning, Chang 3, 13
4, 6, 11, 20 103 Conning, Choi 4, 6, 11,
20

5 103 Conning, Martins 5
7 103 Conning, Choi,
Vertegaal
7
12 103 Conning, Vertegaal 12
15 103 Conning, Chang,
Martins, Choi
15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED