Ex Parte Dhamija et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2016

12754312 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121754,312 04/05/2010
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
01/26/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vijay Dhamija
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0025403 4874/110812 6474
EXAMINER
RAHAMAN, MOHAMMED S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIJA Y DHAMIJA, ANDREW JACKSON,
KARTHEEK NAGASURI, and MARINE DRIVE
Appeal2014-003437
Application 12/754,312 1
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-8, 11-15, 18, and 19.2 Claims 8, 9, 16, 17, and 20 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Appellants do not consistently list the set of claims being appealed. See
App. Br. 2, 7, 11; Reply Br. 4. Nevertheless, we consider this appeal to
cover all claims rejected in the Final Action of June 27, 2013, based on
Appellants' Notice of Appeal filed August 13, 2013.
Appeal2014-003437
Application 12/754,312
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to searching for devices in a
surveillance system and performing an action on all devices found in the
search. Spec. if 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a descriptive search term that identifies a
search criteria through a text box from a user;
searching a plurality of devices for compliance with the
search criteria;
displaying in a viewing pane of a display device,
substantially simultaneously, video data streams associated with
a first group of devices in the plurality of devices that are in
compliance with the search criteria;
displaying in the viewing pane of the display device,
substantially simultaneously, video data streams associated with
a second group of devices in the plurality of devices that are in
compliance with the search criteria; and
browsing the viewing pane of the display device between
displaying the video data streams associated with the first group
and the video data streams associated with the second group by
at least selecting "next" and "previous" buttons to display the
next and previous video data streams associated with the next
and previous devices in a result list of the search criteria.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App.).
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
2
Appeal2014-003437
Application 12/754,312
Claims 1-8, 12-15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rensin (US 2007/0199076 Al, Aug. 23, 2007) and Park
(US 2009/0262206 Al, Oct. 22, 2009). Ans. 2-9.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rensin, Park, and Martin (US 2011/0154225Al, June 23, 2001). Ans.
9-10.
ISSUES
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Rensin and Park
teaches or suggests "displaying ... substantially simultaneously, video data
streams associated with a first group of devices ... [and] a second group of
devices in the plurality of devices that are in compliance with the search
criteria" and "browsing ... by selecting 'next' and 'previous' buttons to
display the next and previous video data streams," as recited in claim 1?
Does the Examiner provide adequate reasons for combining Rensin
and Park?
ANALYSIS
In the obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds Rensin
teaches "searching a plurality of devices for compliance with the search
criteria," "displaying ... video data streams associated with a first group of
devices," and "selecting ... video data streams ... in a result list of the
search criteria." Ans. 3--4 (citing, inter alia, Rensin i-f 229). Specifically, the
Examiner cites Rensin as teaching that a user may search for cameras with a
text search, whereupon the user may select among cameras meeting the
search criteria for display by way of, for example, a pull-down list. Ans. 3-
3
Appeal2014-003437
Application 12/754,312
4, 11-12 (both citing Rensin i-fi-1225, 229). The Examiner cites Park as
teaching "displaying ... , substantially simultaneously, video data streams
associated with a second group of devices" and "browsing ... by selecting
'next' and 'previous' buttons to display the next and previous video data
streams." Ans. 3--4, 12 (both citing Park Fig. 5A, i170). In particular, the
Examiner cites Park's forward/back control 522 in Figure 5A as teaching the
recited '"next' and 'previous' buttons." Id. The Examiner posits combining
Park's teachings on the forward/back control and grouped display of video
streams with Rensin's text searching capability for video streams to teach
the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 4---6, 11-12.
Appellants argue Rensin "is merely directed to a find subfunction that
allows a user to identify a camera" and select it for display "one camera at-a-
time." App. Br. 7 (citing Rensin i1229), 11; see also Reply Br. 3.
Appellants also argue Park is "merely directed" to navigating through
various images in a video surveiiiance system that are "stitched" together to
form one panoramic view, which Park describes as moving the "virtual
viewpoint." App. Br. 7 (citing Park i173), 11. Appellants contend "the
concept of a 'virtual viewpoint' is inconsistent with moving through a list of
references whose only relationship is that they were all identified by a
common search term." Id. at 7; see also Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. These arguments
simply recapitulate the teachings of the individual references under the guise
of what they "merely" teach. See App. Br. 7. To the extent Appellants
attack Rensin and Park individually, rather than to address the combination
of Rensin and Park put forth in the rejection, this line of argument cannot
show nonobviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
4
Appeal2014-003437
Application 12/754,312
Furthermore, the Examiner acknowledges "Rensin is silent about
grouping of cameras," so the Examiner relies on Park for teaching groups of
cameras that are simultaneously displayed. Ans. 11-12 (citing Park Fig. 5A,
if 70). Thus, Appellants' argument about a single camera being displayed at
a time in Rensin is not persuasive. We are also not persuaded that Park's
"virtual viewpoint" and stitching of multiple camera images undermine the
Examiner's rejection, because the Examiner does not rely on these aspects of
Park. See id. at 13. To the contrary, the Examiner relies on Park for
teaching "the concept of navigating or browsing through selected group of
cameras" with forward and back buttons, which is consistent with the
"browsing" step of claim 1. See id. at 12 (citing Park Fig. 5A, if 70).
Although Appellants contend "[ n Jo other uses of the 'next' and
'previous' buttons are disclosed" in Park, Reply Br. 2, we agree with the
Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to apply
Park's navigation buttons to Rensin's puH-down iist of search results to
"provid[ e an] intuitive and easy to use user interface with navigation tools
for quick access to multiple cameras." Ans. 5-6. This refutes Appellants'
contention that the Examiner has failed to provide a teaching or suggestion
for the combination of Park with Rensin. See App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3-
4. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' contention that Park and
Rensin do not "recognize the problem solved by the claimed invention,"
namely, "browsing through a relatively long list of live video feeds that meet
a particular search criteria." App. Br. 11. The Examiner has established that
both references address "brows[ing] through videos from a relatively long
list of cameras." Ans. 15 (citing Rensin iii! 225, 229; Park Fig. 5A, if 70).
As such, we find that the Examiner has articulated adequate reasoning,
5
Appeal2014-003437
Application 12/754,312
including a rational underpinning drawn from the cited references, for the
combination of Rensin and Park. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Finally, Appellants list several limitations they contend are not taught
or suggested by the cited references, but these contentions are not supported
by any evidence or developed argument. See App. Br. 8. Merely asserting
that the cited prior art reference does not disclose a claim limitation is
insufficient to show error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.").
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim
1. Appeiiants have not presented separate arguments with respect to the
Examiner's rejections of claims 2-8, 11-15, 18, and 19, so we likewise
sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8, 11-15, 18, and 19 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
JRG
6