HANWHA TECHWIN CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2020001553 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
15/446,717 03/01/2017 Hyun Ho KIM HT70003 3956
71433 7590 07/27/2021
McLean IP Global
3010 Lyndon B Johnson Freeway
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75234
EXAMINER
STRAUB, D'ARCY WINSTON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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):
contact@mcleanip.com
jason.pahng@gmail.com
jason.pahng@mcleanip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYUN HO KIM, KYUNG DUK KIM, and MIN JUNG SHIM
Appeal 2020-001553
Application 15/446,717
Technology Center 2400

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8–20, which are all of the pending
claims.2 See Appeal Br. 1. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hanwha Techwin
Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appellant canceled claim 1 in an amendment dated April 26, 2019, and
canceled claims 2–7 and 21 in an Amendment After Final dated June 21,
2019. Per the Advisory Action dated July 3, 2019, the Examiner entered the
Amendment After Final.
Appeal 2020-001553
Application 15/446,717

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s Specification describes a surveillance camera system and
a method of updating set values for the surveillance cameras. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 8.
By way of background, Appellant’s Specification describes “increased
installation time” and “increased time for maintenance” associated with
setting “an access address for each of the surveillance cameras” in a system.
Id. ¶ 5. As an improvement, Appellant’s Specification describes a system in
which a surveillance camera may “read a recognized object” such as a QR
code, and update a set value, such as an IP address of the camera. Id. ¶¶ 65–
66, 87.
Claims 8 and 10 are independent and are reproduced below:
8. The method of controlling an installation of a
surveillance camera, the method comprising:
detecting the surveillance camera connected to a
network;
generating mapping data of the detected surveillance
camera;
sending a request for a set value of one or more set items
of the detected surveillance camera to the detected surveillance
camera;
receiving the set value from the detected surveillance
camera; and
updating the mapping data of the detected surveillance
camera based on the received set value.

10. A surveillance camera system, comprising:
at least one surveillance camera configured to:
update a set value of one or more set items by
reading a readable object in a captured image; and
Appeal 2020-001553
Application 15/446,717

3
transmit the set value of the one or more set items
to an external device in response to receiving a request
for the set value therefrom;
a user terminal configured to display the readable object
on a display based on at least one of user’s input and a
surveillance camera database; and
a surveillance camera mapping database configured to:
send the request for the set value of the one or
more set items to the at least one surveillance camera;
and
update mapping data of the at least one
surveillance camera by receiving the set value from the at
least one surveillance camera.
Appeal Br. 7, 8 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Liu3 US 2008/0198159 A1 Aug. 21, 2008
Lee US 2013/0120571 A1 May 16, 2013
Skans US 2016/0343137 A1 Nov. 24, 2016
Madar US 2017/0278365 A1 Sept. 28, 2017
REJECTIONS
Claims 8–14 and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)4 as
anticipated by Madar. Final Act. 6–11.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combination of Madar, Skans, and Lee. Final Act. 15–17.

3 All references are cited using the first-named inventor.
4 All rejections are under the provisions of Title 35 of the United States
Code in effect after the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act of 2011.
Appeal 2020-001553
Application 15/446,717

4
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combination of Madar, Skans, and Liu. Final Act. 17–18.

OPINION
Appellant appeals the Final Rejection with regard to only claims 8 and
10. See Appeal Br. 1, 6. We have considered Appellant’s arguments and
contentions (Appeal Br. 3–6; Reply Br. 4–9) in light of the Examiner’s
findings and explanations (Final Act. 6–9; Ans. 3–9). For the reasons set
forth below, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejections of the
pending claims, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
A. Claim 8
The Examiner finds Madar discloses each of the limitations of claim
8. Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 4–5. With regard to the detecting step, the Examiner
finds Madar discloses that, upon startup, the surveillance camera sends a
request to the registration server for an IP address, with the registration
server detecting the camera through the request. Final Act. 6 (citing Madar
¶ 50). With regard to the step of “generating mapping data,” the Examiner
finds Madar discloses an application executing on a user device that sends
configuration information about the surveillance camera to the registration
server. Id. at 7 (citing Madar ¶¶ 43, 56). With regard to the step of “sending
a request for a set value,” the Examiner finds Madar discloses a
configuration image (such as a QR code) is presented to the surveillance
camera. Id. (citing Madar ¶¶ 55–56); Ans. 4–5 (citing Madar ¶¶ 46, 55).
The Examiner finds Madar discloses that the QR code “is preferably
supplied by the registration server,” and thus the registration server
“indirectly requests the configuration information through the presentation
Appeal 2020-001553
Application 15/446,717

5
of the QR code to the camera.” Id. at 5 (quoting Madar ¶ 46). With regard
to the step of “receiving the set value from the detected surveillance
camera,” the Examiner find Madar discloses “the configuration image is sent
to the registration server . . . by the surveillance camera . . . in conjunction
with surveillance camera information.” Id. (quoting Madar ¶ 57). With
regard to the step of “updating the mapping data,” the Examiner finds Madar
discloses the application executing on the user device sends configuration
information of the detected surveillance camera to the registration server,
and the information is then stored. Final Act. 7 (citing Madar ¶¶ 56, 60).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings are in error because
Madar does not disclose “sending a request for a set value of one or more set
items of the detected surveillance camera to the detected surveillance
camera” and “receiving the set value from the detected surveillance camera.”
Appeal Br. 4. In particular, Appellant contends that “Madar’s camera . . . is
only capable of taking a photo . . . and nothing else.” Id.
We disagree. As the Examiner determines, and we agree, the “set
value” as described in the Specification is broad, and encompasses
“configuration information” as described in Madar. Ans. 4 (citing Spec.
¶ 87; Madar ¶ 56). The Examiner also finds:
As for “sending a request ... to the ... camera,” Madar at
¶ [0055] states, with reference to Fig. 2, that “in step 618, the
configuration image is presented to the surveillance camera
103-1.” Here, holding the QR code (i.e., configuration image,
see Madar at ¶ [0046]) up to the camera serves as the “request”
that is sent to the “camera” by the mere presentation of the QR
code to the camera. Madar discloses at ¶ [0046] that the QR
code “is preferably supplied by the registration server.” Thus,
owing to the broad nature of claim 8 that fails to recite the
origin of the request, Madar teaches the Appellant’s “sending”
Appeal 2020-001553
Application 15/446,717

6
step by way of the registration server that indirectly requests the
configuration information through the presentation of the QR
code to the camera.
Regarding the second step of “receiving the set value
from the ... camera,” Madar teaches this step at ¶ [0057] with
reference to Fig. 2. Madar states, “In step 622, the
configuration image is sent to the registration server 314 by the
surveillance camera 103-1 in conjunction with surveillance
camera information ....” The “surveillance camera information”
referenced in ¶ [0057] comprises the aforementioned
“configuration information” that teaches the “set value,” and
Madar clearly teaches that the registration server “receiv[es]”
this information from the camera.
Ans. 4–5. We agree the Examiner’s findings are supported by the cited
teachings, and we adopt these findings as our own.
In the Reply, Appellant raises several additional arguments against the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Reply 5–6. Appellant premises these
arguments on the steps recited in claim 9, which recite that the “one or more
set items comprise at least one of” several types of information. Id.
(emphasis added). Appellant contends the steps listed in claim 9 “further
define[] at least 4 cases for the set items.” Id. at 5. As noted above,
however, Appellant presents no arguments regarding claim 9 in the Appeal
Brief. Moreover, we find nothing in the Examiner’s Answer that would
have prompted these new arguments raised by Appellant for the first time in
the Reply Brief. Rather, the Examiner’s stated reasoning in the Final Action
(Final Act. 4–5) and in the Advisory Action dated July 3, 2019 (Adv. Act. 2)
is identical to the reasoning stated in the Answer (Ans. 4–5). Therefore,
Appellant’s new arguments in the Reply brief are not entitled to our
consideration. Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469
F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the reply
Appeal 2020-001553
Application 15/446,717

7
brief that could have been raised in the opening brief is waived); accord Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473–74 (BPAI 2010) (informative
opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to
address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been
presented in the principal brief on appeal).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 8, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection.
B. Claim 10
The Examiner finds Madar discloses all of the limitations of claim 10,
based on reasoning similar to that presented for claim 8. Final Act. 7–9.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because Madar does
not disclose the surveillance camera updates a set value. Appeal Br. 6.
Rather, on Appellant’s reading, “[i]n Madar, the set value is updated in the
registration server and the surveillance camera merely sends the image to the
registration server.” Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As the Examiner finds, and
we agree, the limitation “update a set value” is disclosed by Madar, which
states, “the configuration image is sent to the registration server 314 by the
surveillance camera 103-1 in conjunction with surveillance camera
information obtained from the surveillance camera 103-1.” Ans. 7–8
(quoting Madar ¶ 57). The Examiner maps the “set value” of claim 10 to
Madar’s “surveillance camera information,” and finds “this surveillance
camera information is updated by way of associating it with the
configuration image (i.e., QR code).” Id. at 8. In particular, the Examiner
finds “[u]pdating information can occur by altering the information itself,
adding new information to it, and deleting information from it. Here, Madar
Appeal 2020-001553
Application 15/446,717

8
updates the surveillance camera information (i.e., ‘set values’) by adding
information to it, which is the information contained within the QR code.”
Id. The Examiner further finds, with respect to Fig. 2 of Madar,
this step is implied with step 622 where it states, “Send
configuration image (e.g., QR code) in conjunction with
surveillance camera (SC) configuration information obtained
from SC 622.” The implied step that adds the QR code to the
configuration information might be thought of as step 621 that
occurs at the surveillance camera 103-1.

Id. Thus, the Examiner finds Madar discloses the surveillance camera is
configured to “update a set value” by associating the QR code read by the
camera with surveillance camera information (e.g., configuration
information, which the Examiner maps to set values). Id. at 6–9. The
Examiner further finds this is done in Madar by the surveillance camera in
response to receiving a request because “the displaying of the QR code in
step 618 is done to initiate the transmission of the configuration information
(i.e., set value) to the registration server as accomplished in step 622.” Id. at
9. The Examiner’s findings are supported by the cited evidence, and we
adopt them as our own.
In its Reply, Appellant submits new arguments in response to the
Examiner’s Answer, including arguing the rejection of claim 10 by reference
to a claim (claim 11) not addressed by Appellant in the Appeal Brief.
See Reply 7–9. As noted above, these new arguments in reply are not
entitled to our consideration.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 10, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection.
Appeal 2020-001553
Application 15/446,717

9
C. Claims 9 and 11–20
Appellant does not present arguments with regard to dependent claims
9 and 11–20. We, therefore, summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
those claims. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1205.02, 9th ed., Rev. 8, Aug. 2017 (“If a ground of rejection stated by the
examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any
challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain
it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the
examiner’s answer.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(1).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 8–20 are sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8–14, 16–19 102(a)(1) Madar 8–14, 16–19
15 103 Madar, Skans, Lee 15
20 103 Madar, Skans, Liu 20
Overall
Outcome
8–20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED