MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 16, 2022

2021000962 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022)

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. 15/906,183 02/27/2018 ISABEL FIRPO PAT21456-US-PRI 9334 22917 7590 02/16/2022 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. IP Law Docketing 500 W. Monroe 43rd Floor Chicago, IL 60661 EXAMINER ANDERSON II, JAMES M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2022 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 ISABEL FIRPO, CATHERINE WITKIN, and BENJAMIN ZASLOW ____________________ Appeal 2021-000962 Application 15/906,183 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, 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 to reject claims 1-16. Claims 17-20 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 11-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest is Motorola Solutions, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000962 Application 15/906,183 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. An apparatus comprising: [A.] a receiver configured to receive a first video stream from a first person; [B.] logic circuitry configured to: [i.] determine a second person is in proximity to the first person; [ii.] determine a talkgroup associated with the second person; [iii.] merge audio associated with the talkgroup with the first video stream; [C.] a transmitter configured to transmit the first video stream with the merged audio. REFERENCE2 The Examiner relies on the following reference: Name Reference Date Mazzarella US 2017/0099455 A1 Apr. 6, 2017 REJECTIONS A. § 102 - Mazzarella The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazzarella. Final Act. 2-6. We select claim 1 as the representative claims for this rejection. Appellant does not argue separate patentability for claims 2, 4-10, and 12- 16. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of this § 102 rejection of claims 2, 4-10, and 12-16 further herein. 2 Citation herein is by reference to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2021-000962 Application 15/906,183 3 B. § 103 The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzarella. Final Act. 7. Appellant does not argue separate patentability for claims 3 and 11. Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 11 further herein. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. A. Examiner’s Finding The Examiner finds Mazzarella teaches: merge audio associated with the talkgroup with the first video stream (¶¶0096-0097; fig. 3: 302A; 304A; 306A; 308A)[.] Final Act. 3. B. Appellant’s Argument Appellant raises the following arguments in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated.3 See Appeal Br. 6-10. The prior art fails to teach or otherwise suggest merging audio associated with the talkgroup with the first video stream. Examiner Anderson rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mazzarella et al. (US 2017/0099455 Al. Analysis of this reference reveals that Mazzarella fails to teach or otherwise suggest merging PTT 3 The Appeal Brief sets forth in the heading of the first argument that independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Appeal Br. 4). However, the body of the arguments set forth that the rejection is under section 102(a)(2). Id. 6-10. Accordingly, we understand the heading’s recitation of section 103 to be a clerical error. Appeal 2021-000962 Application 15/906,183 4 audio into a video stream as claimed by the Applicants. More particularly, Mazzarella teaches that a graphical-user interface (GUI) can be modified so that PTT communications can be easily accomplished to officers that are associated with a particular video camera. This is mentioned, for example, in [0035]. [0035] In an embodiment, VMS-PTT application server 116 may enable an operator of the VMS application to engage in PTT communications with members of a voice communications group (i.e., a talk group), such as field personnel operating one or more PTT mobile devices 120A-B of talk group 122A, that is logically associated with one or more selected video feeds of the one or more video cameras 110. In an embodiment, when the operator enables an active transmission mode, the operator’s PTT client transmits the operator’s voice communication to each member of the talk group, specifically, to each PTT client of respective members’ PTT mobile devices. PTT clients may also enable transmission and receipt of real time voice communications, video streams, files, text, and other data resources between and among users who are members of a talk group. Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added). Thus, a person watching a particular video feed will be able to communicate with people relevant to the video feed by pressing the PTT button associated with the video feed. For example, a person watching video feed 308C will be able to communicate with users relevant to the video by pressing PTT button 306C. Nowhere is it taught or suggested to merge audio. Appeal Br. 8. [T]he term “merge” is defined as “to combine or cause to combine” or to “blend or cause to blend”. Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000962 Application 15/906,183 5 B. Panel’s Analysis We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We give the term “merge” the definition argued for by Appellant (Reply Br. 3), yet we are still unpersuaded by Appellant’s prior-art argument. Mazzarella at paragraph 96 (cited by the Examiner) states, “the operator may select a defined talk group to be logically associated with the video feed or a group of video feeds including the video feed.” Emphasis added. Also, Mazzarella at paragraph 97 (cited by the Examiner) states, “PTT [push to talk] control module 206 of FIG. 2, detects that the embedded PTT control component of the IMMO associated with the video feed is activated.” Further, Mazzarella further describes the IMMO and “logically associated with” as follows: Each of the video feeds may be a video feed component of a corresponding interactive multimedia object (IMMO) that is displayed in the VMS GUI. One or more video feeds displayed within the VMS GUI may be coupled to an embedded PTT control component. A defined talk group may be logically associated with the one or more video feeds by coupling the talk group to the embedded PTT control component. Upon detecting that the PTT control component is activated by an operator, the VMS system may enable PTT voice communications related to the one or more video feed views between the operator and each member comprising the defined talk group. . . . The IMMO may include multiple components to integrate different communication resources including voice and video communications. Mazzarella ¶¶15-16 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-000962 Application 15/906,183 6 Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we conclude that an artisan would understand integrating different communication resources including voice and video communications into an interactive multimedia object (IMMO) to describe the claimed function of “merge audio . . . with the first video stream.” CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-16, as being anticipated by Mazzarella under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 3 and 11 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16 102(a)(2) Mazzarella 1, 2, 4- 10, 12-16 3, 11 103 Mazzarella 3, 11 Overall Outcome 1-16 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) (2013). AFFIRMED