Ex Parte Dhamija et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 22, 201612754312 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation