Ex Parte Hauptmann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201613107427 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/107,427 05/13/2011 22917 7590 05/16/2016 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. IP Law Docketing 1301 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD IL02 5th Floor - SHS SCHAUMBURG, IL 60196 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ALEXANDER HAUPTMANN 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. CM14256 7390 EXAMINER BITAR, NANCY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2016 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): USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEXANDER HAUPTMANN and BOAZ J. SUPER Appeal2014-008997 Application 13/107,427 Technology Center 2600 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. "1"1 ,1 "1 "1 ,..,,,-TT#'l~ll"l,..,,Al/'-r'" ,"1 T"""i •., Appeuants' appeal unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom me bxammer s rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-13.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Motorola Solutions, Inc. Br. 3. 2 Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but the Examiner has indicated that it would be allowable if written in independent form. Final Act. 8. Appeal2014-008997 Application 13/107,427 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' present application relates to selecting an algorithm to track an object from the field of view of a first camera to the field of view of a second camera. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows: 1. A method for selecting a feature or appearance matching method based on available video representation features, the method comprising: determining by a video analytic processor, a plurality of available video representation features for a first video output from a first camera and for a second video output from a second camera; analyzing, by the video analytic processor the plurality of video representation features as compared to at least one threshold to select one of a plurality of feature or appearance matching methods; using the feature or appearance matching method selected to track/detect movement of an object or person from a field of view of the first camera to a field of view of the second camera. The Examiner's Rejection Claims 1-5 and 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Khan et al., IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 25, No. 10 (Oct. 2003), Bronstein (US 2010/0104184 Al; Apr. 29, 2010), and Yoshimatsu (US 6,326,994 Bl; Dec. 4, 2001). See Ans. 4-8. 2 Appeal2014-008997 Application 13/107,427 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Khan, Bronstein, and Y oshimatsu teaches or suggests "analyzing, by the video analytic processor the plurality of video representation features as compared to at least one threshold to select one of a plurality of feature or appearance matching methods." See Br. 4-8. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner relies on Bronstein to teach or suggest this limitation, but Bronstein "only discloses a single technique to identify objects, and thus fails to teach or otherwise suggest selecting among a plurality of feature or appearance matching techniques." Br. 6. Appellants argue Bronstein teaches a single approach called "video DNA or video genomics," and when Bronstein refers uses this phrase, the "or" refers to two different names for the same approach, not two different approaches. Br. 6-7. Appellants also argue Bronstein's spatial and temporal matching are two techniques that are both used in video DNA or video genomics, not two separate techniques from which the system selects. Br. 7. We disagree with Appellants' characterization of Bronstein and Appellants' conclusions. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bronstein 3 Appeal2014-008997 Application 13/107,427 teaches three different algorithms: one temporal, one distance, and one combination of temporal and distance. Ans. 9 (citing Bronstein Fig. 9). Bronstein teaches each of these algorithms uses a threshold to remove tracks-which are representations of a trajectory of a feature across frames of video (Bronstein ,-i 125)-that do not comply with the threshold. Ans. 10 (citing Bronstein ,-i 129). We also note that Bronstein teaches tracks are initially selected "based on feature similarity (i.e., the features belonging to the track have similar descriptors), motion (i.e., the locations of the feature points do not change significantly along the track), or both." Bronstein ,-i 125. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Bronstein teaches selecting one of a plurality of algorithms. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Bronstein teaches or suggests the "analyzing" limitation. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Khan, Bronstein, and Y oshimatsu. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 and 7- 13, which are not argued separately. See Br. 4-8. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 and 7-13. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). 4 Appeal2014-008997 Application 13/107,427 AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation