DIGITAL MONITORING PRODUCTS, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 20, 20212020004302 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/684,172 04/10/2015 Rick A. Britton 5270.004 1038 37761 7590 12/20/2021 Erickson Kernell IP, LLC 8900 State Line Road Suite 500 Leawood, KS 66206 EXAMINER ABOUZAHRA, HESHAM K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2021 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): ekdkdocket@kcpatentlaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com kre@kcpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RICK A. BRITTON, JEFFREY M. BRITTON, and KEVIN D. ELLISON ____________________ Appeal 2020-004302 Application 14/684,172 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Digital Monitoring Products, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2020-004302 Application 14/684,172 2 DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED INVENTION According to Appellant, the disclosed invention, entitled “Remote Alarm Verification System and Method” (see Title), relates to alarm verification by a user of security systems configured to electronically monitor houses, businesses, and other locations (see Spec. ¶ 2). As disclosed by Appellant: Typically, responsive to detecting unauthorized entry and/or movement at a house or business, these systems generate an audible alarm and notify an alarm services provider of the unauthorized entry and/or movement. The alarm services provider may attempt to contact the owner of the house or business to verify whether or not there is an actual emergency that requires police, fire, and/or medical intervention. Often the alarm services provider is unable to contact the owner of the house or business and calls the police, requiring the police or security company to go to the location to determine if there was an actual emergency. Spec. ¶ 2. Appellant recognizes that having the end user (e.g., homeowner or business owner) verify the authenticity of the alarm condition by reviewing live streaming images and video clips from the security system’s cameras (see Fig. 2B, end user display) may help avoid requiring the police or security company physically going to the secured location to determine if there was an actual emergency (see Spec. ¶¶ 2–11). Independent claims 1 and 12 recite commensurate limitations regarding “facilitating remote verification of alarm events by an end user” (claims 1, 12). Exemplary independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced below: Appeal 2020-004302 Application 14/684,172 3 1. A system configured to facilitate remote verification of alarm events by an end user, the system comprising one or more physical computer processors configured by computer readable instructions to: receive security video information from one or more cameras monitoring a location of interest; determine whether an alarm event has occurred for the location of interest; and [A] responsive to determining that an alarm event has occurred: cause electronic recording of one or more clips of security video information from the one or more cameras monitoring the location of interest, an individual clip comprising security video information from an individual camera for a period of time that corresponds to a time of the determined alarm event; cause the user device associated with the end user to [B] present, live streaming images from the one or more cameras and a selectable list of the one or more clips to the end user for review, wherein an individual live streaming image is associated with an individual camera, and [C] wherein the selectable list of the one or more clips and the live streaming images are presented to the end user at the same time in a single view of a graphical user interface displayed by the user device associated with the end user; facilitate determination by the end user of whether the determined alarm event is a false alarm event, or a verified alarm event based on the clips and the live streaming images; and facilitate communication of verification information that indicates the determination by the end user of whether the determined alarm event is a false alarm event or a verified alarm event from the user device. Appeal 2020-004302 Application 14/684,172 4 Appeal Br. 18, Claims Appendix (bracketed lettering and emphases added). The Examiner’s Rejections2 (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1–7 and 12–18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Galvin (US 2012/0113265 A1; published May 10, 2012) and Lett (US 9,495,860 B2; issued Nov. 15, 2016 and filed Dec. 11, 2014).3 Final Act. 6–25; Ans. 3–21. (2) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 8–11 and 19–22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Galvin, Lett, and Naidoo et al. (US 2003/0062997 A1; published April 3, 2003) (hereinafter, “Naidoo”).4 Final Act. 25–27; Ans. 21–23. 2 The Examiner states that method claims 12–22 (which are commensurate in scope with corresponding system claims 1–11) are rejected “under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system claims 1-11” (Final Act. 10), but omits claims 12–22 from the headings of the statements of the two obviousness rejections. This is harmless error, and we consider (i) claims 12–18 to stand rejected over the same base combination as claims 1–7; and (ii) 19–22 to stand rejected over the same combination as claims 8–11. 3 Appellant presents separate arguments only as to claims 1 and 12 (see Appeal Br. 7–17), primarily focusing on claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 11–16). Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–7 and 13–18. Claims 1 and 12 contain commensurate limitations. Based on Appellant’s arguments, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims consisting of claims 1–7 and 12–18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 4 With regard to dependent claims 8–11 and 19–22 rejected under § 103 over Galvin, Lett, and Naidoo, Appellant does not present any separate arguments. Therefore, there is no issue as to this rejection, and we summarily sustain this rejection, and do not discuss this rejection in our analysis. Appeal 2020-004302 Application 14/684,172 5 Principal Issue on Appeal Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 7– 17) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–7), the following principal issue is presented on appeal: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–7 and 12–18 as being obvious over the base combination of Galvin and Lett because the base combination fails to teach or suggest limitations A, B, and C, as recited in representative claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 4–9; see also Ans. 3–55) in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 7–17) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–7) that the Examiner has erred. We have also reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 5–8). We disagree with Appellant’s contentions, which address the teachings of Galvin and Lett individually, and fail to address the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of references as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations (see e.g., limitations A and B in claim 1 supra). With regard to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (i) the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4–5), as well as (2) the findings and reasoning set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 5– 8) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. 5 We refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 14, 2020. Appeal 2020-004302 Application 14/684,172 6 In general, Appellant’s arguments address the individual shortcomings of Galvin and Lett, are conclusory, and do not address the collective teachings and suggestions of the references. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Galvin and Lett. We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references). In addition, a factfinder “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claims” and “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, Appellant generally argues that neither Galvin nor Lett individually discloses limitations A, B, and C recited in claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 13–17; Reply Br. 2–7). However, these conclusory statements are not persuasive to show the Examiner erred in relying on the combination of references in teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations. Instead, as to claim 1, we find the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and response to Appellant’s arguments (see Ans. 5–8) to be reasonable. As to claim 1, Appellant has not responded with persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings and conclusions; in particular, the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 130 (see Final Act. 4; Ans. 3), in combination with paragraphs 150, 155, and 156 of Galvin (see Ans. 3, 6–7), Appeal 2020-004302 Application 14/684,172 7 as teaching live video being played simultaneously along with the alarm view as set forth in claim 1, namely limitation B and C, including generating an annotation timeline for a presentation using an annotation object. Appellant’s contention that Galvin fails to teach a selectable list of clips (see Reply Br. 4–5), is unpersuasive in light of Galvin’s description of an alarm panel graphical user interface 310 having columns indicating event type 312, site name 314, camera 316, event time 317, a set of selectors for live video 318, and a set of selectors for playback video 319 (see Galvin ¶ 130). In addition, Appellant has not responded to the Examiner’s expanded reliance on column 4, lines 16–33 of Lett as presenting live streaming images (see Ans. 7–8). See generally Reply Br. 6. In this light, Appellant’s arguments as to claim 1 concerning the individual shortcomings in the teachings of Galvin and Lett are not persuasive, and are not convincing of the non-obviousness of the claimed invention set forth in claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 as being obvious over the base combination of Galvin and Lett, as well as the corresponding claims grouped respectively therewith. CONCLUSION Appellant has not adequately shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–22 over the base combination of Galvin and Lett. As a result, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–22 are affirmed. Appeal 2020-004302 Application 14/684,172 8 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 12– 18 103 Galvin, Lett 1–7, 12–18 8–11, 19– 22 103 Galvin, Lett, Naidoo 8–11, 19–22 Overall Outcome 1–22 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation