DIGITAL MONITORING PRODUCTS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 20, 2021

2020004302 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 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.
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