Ex Parte Penland

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

14104944 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/104,944 12/12/2013
28765 7590 09/25/2018
Winston & Strawn LLP
1700 K Street NW, 2nd Floor
Patent Department
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rustin B. Penland
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.
170028-10810 8753
EXAMINER
PEREZ FUENTES, LUIS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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):
patentdocket@winston.com
sfanelli @wins ton. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUSTIN B. PENLAND
Appeal 2016-006315
Application 14/104,944
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held March
20, 2018.
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a security system
for identifying, recording, and transmitting video and audio of disturbances
in a building (Spec. 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A security system for identifying a disturbance in a room of
a school building, the system comprising:
Appeal2016-006315
Application 14/104,944
a camera and monitor in each room of the building that is to
be occupied by individuals, with the camera operatively
configured to normally be inactive even when individuals
are present in the room, with the camera positioned and
located to record and transmit viewing of a substantial
portion or all of the room when the camera is activated, with
the camera able to record both sights and sounds occurring
in the room only when activated by an authorized person
who is present in the room, and with the monitor engageable
to receive transmissions from one or more cameras of other
occupied rooms only when the cameras in the other rooms
are activated;
a storage compartment for a weapon located in one, a
plurality or all of the occupied rooms, the storage
compartment in electronic association with at least two
manual activation mechanisms, a first one associated with
activation of the system for a non-emergency situation and
a second one associated with activation of the system for an
emergency situation, wherein each manual activation
mechanism is physically present in the same room as the
storage compartment; and
a computer that is in electronic association with the cameras,
monitors, storage compartment and activation mechanisms
to facilitate operation of the system, including:
automatically activating the camera in the room where
the first activation mechanism is located that
mechanism is manually activated by an authorized
individual who is present in the room to indicate a non-
emergency disturbance and to record events occurring
in the room during the disturbance without
simultaneous transmission to other rooms; and
automatically and simultaneously activating the
camera, opening the storage compartment to provide
access to the weapon therein and generating an alarm
2
Appeal2016-006315
Application 14/104,944
that indicates that an emergency situation exists in the
room when the second activation mechanism is
manually activated by the authorized individual who is
present in the room to indicate an emergency situation
in the room, with the camera, only when activated by
the second activation mechanism, allowing video and
audio of the events in the room to be simultaneously
recorded and transmitted to the monitors of at least
adjacent or nearby rooms or to all rooms to provide the
occupants of those rooms information regarding the
emergency situation and the room in which the
emergency situation is occurring.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Monroe
Markey et al.
Stevenson
US 6,970,183 Bl
US 8,427,297 Bl
US 2011/0175730 Al
REJECTIONS
Nov. 29, 2005
Apr. 23, 2013
July 21, 2011
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Markey, Monroe, and Stevenson (Final Rej. 4--9).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-20
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 1-20, is
patentable over Markey, Monroe, and Stevenson (App. Br. 10-18). 1 The
1 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief for the positions of Appellant and the Final Office Action and
Answer for the positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal2016-006315
Application 14/104,944
issue presented by Appellant is whether the Examiner has shown the
combination of Markey, Monroe, and Stevenson teaches or suggests "a
camera and a monitor in each room of the building," as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 19.
ANALYSIS
Although the Examiner has set forth factual findings as to the
teachings of Markey, Monroe, and Stevenson, we are persuaded by
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has failed to explain sufficiently
why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings and
suggestions of the cited references.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Markey teaches the camera and
monitor limitations "[ u ]nder the obvious assumption, that one skilled in the
art could assume the possibility of replication/ duplication of the same
system/ components in each of the location[ s] under closed surveillance"
(Final Act. 5). The Examiner further finds that although "Markey fails to in
details disclose a camera and a display in each of the rooms as claimed,"
Monroe teaches this limitation (id.).
The Examiner next relies on Monroe for teaching the recited
"computer that is in electronic association with the cameras, monitors,
storage compartment and activation mechanisms" limitation and Stevenson
to teach the recited "storage compartment for a weapon" limitation (id.).
The Examiner then concludes
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time the
invention was made, to combine the inventions of Markey et al.
with Monroe et al. because it will provide (a full service, multi-
media surveillance system capable of a wide range of monitoring
4
Appeal2016-006315
Application 14/104,944
techniques utilizing digital network architecture [Summary]) and
further with Stevenson et al. because such a combination will
provide ( additional system protection, and at the same time will
limit access to the gun [0005; 0007])
(Final Act. 6).
The Examiner, however, does not explain how the teachings would
have been combined to achieve the present invention.
The Examiner relies upon both Markey and Monroe for teaching the
argued claim limitation (Final Rej. 4--5; Ans. 9-10). Specifically, the
Examiner relies on Markey for teaching a camera in each room of the
building that records upon activation (Final Rej. 4 (citing Markey 3:65-67
("still or video cameras 42 [] are mounted in the facility so that pictures
and/or video of all or selected parts of the facility may be captured"
(emphasis added))); id. (citing Markey Fig. 10, which corresponds to
Markey 6:30-36 ("[t]he teacher either activates a nearby manual activation
station 28 or instructs a student to activate the manual activation station ....
cameras 42, 64 are [] instructed to begin recording"))). The Examiner
recognized Markey did not disclose a camera and a display in each room
and, thus, relies on Monroe for teaching a camera and a display (id. at 5).
According to Examiner, Monroe discloses a similar multi-room surveillance
system as the system disclosed in Markey, which employs a plurality of
cameras that display synchronous images in a split screen or serial fashion
upon activation (id. (citing Monroe 6:62----67, 16: 15-26, 35: 15-26, 46:5-
13)). The Examiner argues an ordinarily skilled artisan would know that
each location under surveillance could employ the camera and associated
display, upon activation, in each room by replication and/or duplication of
5
Appeal2016-006315
Application 14/104,944
system components based on the teachings of Markey and Monroe (id.; see
also Ans. 10).
The Examiner relies on Stevenson for teaching a storage compartment
for a weapon, "the storage compartment in electronic association with at
least two manual activation mechanisms," one associated with activation for
a non-emergency situation and another an emergency situation (Final Act. 5
(citing Stevenson ,r,r 21, 40, 41, Summary)) and Monroe for teaching a
multimedia surveillance and security system (Final Act. 5; Monroe, Title).
Stevenson teaches a gun safe with its own alarm system (Stevenson ,r 40).
Stevenson describes one embodiment in which "a manual key lock may be
the primary mechanism for opening and closing the gun safe 10 in non-
alarm conditions" (id. at 41 ). Stevenson further describes an embodiment in
which the manual key lock is the primary mechanism for accessing the
contents in non-alarm conditions and "the behavior of the gun safe 10 in
alarm conditions is controlled by inputs previously received at the front
panel" (id. at 41 ). One such embodiment is described as automatically
unlocking the gun safe upon triggering an alarm system (id. at 21 ).
The Examiner relies on Monroe's activation mechanism to teach the
recited "computer" limitation (Final Act. 5; Ans. 5). Specifically, the
Examiner relies on Monroe's teaching of "an activation mechanism for
activating the senor appliance to generate a monitoring signal" ( emphases
omitted) for teaching the recited "automatically activating the camera ...
where the first activation mechanism is located [when] that mechanism is
manually activated" (Final Act. 5 (citing Monroe 46:5)). The Examiner
further relies on Monroe's teaching of activating appliances and sensors ...
by any other desired criteria" to teach "automatically and simultaneously
6
Appeal2016-006315
Application 14/104,944
activating the camera, opening the storage compartment ... and generating
an alarm that indicates that an emergency situation exists in the room when
the second activation mechanism is manually activated by the authorized
individual" (id. (citing Monroe 16:15)).
The Examiner fails to explain how "such a combination will provide
( additional system protection, and at the same time will limit access to the
gun" (Final Act. 5---6 (citing Stevenson ,r,r 5, 7)). The Examiner's articulated
reason for combining is not sufficient and fails to explain why an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings and how
these teachings would have been combined. Therefore, we agree with
Appellant the Examiner has not clearly articulated how or why the claimed
invention would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan (App. Br.
15-18).
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner fails to show the
combination of Markey, Monroe, and Stevenson renders independent claim
1 and claims 2-20, not separately argued. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Markey, Monroe, and Stevenson.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-20 under§ 103(a).
Because we reverse at least one rejection for every appealed claim, we
designate this Decision a reversal.
REVERSED
7