2020002453 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2021)

Avigilon Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 2, 2021

2020002453 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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. 15/441,572 02/24/2017 Shaun P. Marlatt P10342US00 1703 146570 7590 07/02/2021 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (FOR MSI) 1300 YONGE STREET SUITE 500 TORONTO, ONTARIO M4T-1X3 CANADA EXAMINER CARTER, RICHARD BRUCE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2021 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): carolinewatson@motorolasolutions.com docketing@pckip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SHAUN P. MARLATT ____________________ Appeal 2020-002453 Application 15/441,5721 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1–10 and 12–19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellants’ invention is an apparatus and method for reducing latency impact in a Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) camera system. Spec. ¶ 1. User input is received that defines a camera movement for making a change in a field of view (FOV) of the PTZ camera device. In a period of time overlapping with 1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Avigilon Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claim 11 stands withdrawn from consideration. Appeal 2020-002453 Application 15/441,572 2 the transmitting of the command, video frames are locally transformed to emulate future video frames produced, post-command execution, by the PTV camera device. The invention includes repeatedly checking frames received at the computer terminal via at least one network, until a determination is made that a newly received frame indicates that the local transforming of the video frames is no longer needed. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method carried out on a computer terminal that includes a display and at least one input device, the computer terminal in communication with a Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) camera device over at least one network, and the method comprising: receiving user input provided through the input device; generating a command, specific to the user input, that defines a camera movement for making a change in a Field Of View (FOV) of the PTZ camera device; transmitting the command, destined to be received by the PTZ camera device and to effect eventual camera movement thereof, over the at least one network; in a period of time overlapping with the transmitting of the command, locally transforming video frames to emulate future video frames produced, post-command execution, by the PTZ camera device, wherein local transformation of the video frames is done without using the future video frames being emulated; displaying the locally transformed frames on the display of the computer terminal; and repeatedly checking frames, received at the computer terminal via the at least one network, until a determination is made that a newly received frame indicates that the local transforming of the video frames is no longer needed. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Appeal 2020-002453 Application 15/441,572 3 Name Reference Date Schoepflin US 6,574,353 Bl Jun.3,2003 Oh US 2016/0117821 Al Apr. 28, 2016 Bekiares US 2016/0191858 Al Jun. 30, 2016 Claims 1–10 and 12–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bekiares, Oh, and Schoepflin. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Oct. 10, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 18, 2019) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Bekiares, Oh, and Schoepflin teach or suggest locally transforming video frames to emulate future video frames produced by the PTZ camera device? ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “locally transforming video frames to emulate future video frames produced.” Independent claim 6 recites an analogous limitation. The Examiner finds that Bekiares does not disclose the claimed local transformation of video frames to emulate future video frames, and cites Oh as teaching this limitation. The Examiner finds that Oh teaches first transform model estimator 201, which estimates first transform model H1, and second transform model 203, which estimates a second transform model H2, based on selected feature points of an image or partial image. Final Act. 4; Oh ¶¶ 58, 59. The Examiner further finds that Oh’s local transformation Appeal 2020-002453 Application 15/441,572 4 of video frames emulates future video frames produced. Final Act. 4. The Examiner cites paragraph 89 of Oh as support for this finding. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. Oh describes the operation of second transform model 203, which estimates second transform model H2 by extracting and “matching feature points of the first transform images I1pt and the second partial images I2p.” Oh ¶ 89. The Examiner’s cited section of Oh lacks a teaching or suggestion that future video frames are emulated or intended to be emulated. The overall goal of Oh’s invention is “registering images without parallax errors between objects at different distances.” Oh ¶ 6. Oh achieves this goal with a first transform model and a second transform model each based on corresponding feature points between a first image and a second image, and a registrator configured to register the two images by transforming a first partial image using the first transform model and the second transform model. Oh ¶ 8. While Oh discloses local transformation of video images, Oh is silent concerning any such transformation to emulate future video frames, as recited in the independent claims. The Examiner finds that Oh teaches “temporal transformation.” Ans. 12; Oh ¶¶ 55, 59. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. Oh paragraph 55 concerns the first transform model estimator 201, which estimates a first transform model H1 based on information about feature points extracted from a first image and a second image. The only temporality recited in paragraph 55 is the fact that first transform model H1 “may be previously estimated using a reference object.” Oh ¶ 55. Similarly, paragraph 59 concerns second transform model estimator 203 estimating Appeal 2020-002453 Application 15/441,572 5 second transform model H2. Paragraph 59 of Oh contains no language related to the concept of time. Oh ¶ 59. The Examiner further finds that Appellant’s Specification does not particularly define “future video frame,” and that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term, Oh teaches locally transforming video frames to emulate future video frames. Ans. 12; Oh ¶¶ 67, 70. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. Oh’s paragraph 67 discloses details of second partial image generator 233. This image generator may set regions of second image I2 corresponding to partial images, and may apply transform model H1 to partial image I1p. Oh’s paragraph 70 merely mentions what is contained in Oh Figure 4. Neither paragraph discloses any subject matter related to emulation of future video frames. Oh ¶¶ 67, 70. We find that the combination of Bekiares, Oh, and Schoepflin fails to disclose all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 6. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–10 and 12–19. CONCLUSION The combination of Bekiares, Oh, and Schoepflin does not teach or suggest locally transforming video frames to emulate future video frames produced by the PTZ camera device. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–10, 12– 19 103 Bekiares, Oh, Schoepflin 1–10, 12–19 Appeal 2020-002453 Application 15/441,572 6 ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–19 is reversed. REVERSED