Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2020

15047999 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2020)

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.
15/047,999 02/19/2016 Surendra N. Naidoo 102005.022840 6442
71581 7590 09/23/2020
BakerHostetler / Comcast
Cira Centre, 12th Floor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
VO, TUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2020 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SURENDRA N. NAIDOO, WILLIAM P. GLASGOW, and
GREGORY E. FELDKAMP
____________________

Appeal 2019-002391
Application 15/047,9991
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and ELENI MANTIS-
MERCADER, 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 1−39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.
Appellants’ invention is a system and method for verification and
monitoring of conditions surrounding an alarm signal. A security gateway
can be configured to cause transfer of alarm information, comprising at least
a portion of received video of a portion of the premises relating to the alarm

1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002391
Application 15/047,999

2
condition and a first notification of the alarm condition, in substantially real
time through a first network. A second notification of the alarm condition is
transferred through a second network substantially simultaneously with
transfer of the alarm information through the first network. Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device in communication with a first
network, a first notification of an alarm condition; wherein one or
more of the receiving the first notification or the receiving the
video is in substantially real time and via the first network; and
receiving, via a second network, a second notification of the
alarm condition, wherein a transmission of the second notification is
substantially simultaneous with a transmission of the first notification

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Natale et al. US 4,818,970 Apr. 4, 1989
Kogane et al. US 7,028,328 B2 Apr. 11, 2006

Claims 1−39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Natale and Kogane.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Sept.17, 2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 28,
2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 28, 2018) for their
respective details.
Appeal 2019-002391
Application 15/047,999

3
ISSUES
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does Kogane qualify as prior art?
2. Does the combination of Natale and Kogane teach or suggest that
one or more of receiving a first notification of an alarm condition, or
receiving a video, is substantially in real time and via a first network?
3. Does the combination of Natale and Kogane teach or suggest
receiving, by software executing on a first device, a first notification of an
alarm condition, and receiving, by software executing on a second device, a
second notification of the alarm condition?
4. Does the combination of Natale and Kogane teach or suggest
allowing, by a remote device, remote access to the video of at least the
portion of the premises associated with the alarm condition?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
Effective filing date
Appellant argues that Kogane is not prior art. Appeal Br. 4. Kogane
was filed August 22, 2001, with priority to September 3, 1999. The
invention under appeal is a continuation of Application 13/769,343, filed
February 15, 2013, which is a continuation of Application 09/954,976, filed
September 18, 2001, which is a continuation-in-part of Application
09/357,196, filed July 20, 1999 (now US Patent No. 6,690,411; hereinafter
“the ‘196 application”). Id. Appellant contends that the ‘411 patent supports
Appeal 2019-002391
Application 15/047,999

4
the features of claims 1-39. Appeal Br. 5; 2:27-54, 5:40-54, 7:47-63, 9:25-
29, Figs. 1−3 of ‘196 application.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We have reviewed
the ‘196 application and we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the ‘196
application does not provide support for “wherein a transmission of the
second notification via the second network is substantially simultaneous
with a transmission of the first notification via the first network.” Ans.
3.2 Despite the fact that the Examiner found this specific lack of support in
the Examiner’s Answer, Appellant makes no effort to rebut this specific
finding in the Reply Brief by identifying disclosure in the ‘196 application.
Accordingly, we determine that Appellant’s claimed invention is
entitled to an effective filing date of September 18, 2001. Kogane was filed
on August 22, 2001 and whose parent application was filed on September 3,
1999, and, therefore, qualifies as prior art to the invention under appeal.
Obviousness rejection
Claims 1−6 and 33−39
Appellant contends that Natale and Kogane fail to teach or suggest
“one or more of the receiving the first notification or the receiving the video
is substantially real time,” and via the first network. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not identify a real time
characteristic in Natale. Id. According to Appellant Kogane (e.g., Fig. 3, col.

2 The Examiner clearly meant to refer to Figure 7 of the application under
appeal, rather than the nonexistent Figure 7 of the ‘196 application, as an
illustration of the claimed invention. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-002391
Application 15/047,999

5
4) teaches a video camera but does not disclose video being received in real
time. Appeal Br. 6−7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Natale teaches control circuitry 53, which includes logic
circuit 112 and input 114, to receive signals indicative of an alarm condition
as received by the receiver 51 within the air moving and filtering device 13,
or directly from the remote fire condition detection unit 17 via transmission
line 31. Ans. 4; Natale Fig. 3, 5; col. 7:4−24. Appellant’s Reply argues that
even if the Examiner’s characterization of Natale is accurate, the Examiner
still fails to identify a teaching of “receiving a video is substantially in real
time and via first network.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s argument is not
relevant to the Examiner’s rejection, because the claim limitation under
appeal is phrased in the alternative. The claim requires “wherein one or more
of the receiving the first notification or the receiving the video is in
substantially real time and via the first network.” We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the first alternative limitation, “receiving the first
notification . . . is in substantially real time and via the first network,” is
taught by Natale. Ans. 4.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner did not provide a reason
it would have been obvious to modify Natale in view of Kogane to achieve
this limitation. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that the Examiner has
provided no rationale to modify Natale “to include video that is ‘in
substantially real time and via the first network.’” Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s
further argument is not persuasive. As discussed supra, the Examiner has
cited a teaching corresponding to the alternative limitation contested. We do
not agree with Appellant that the Examiner did not provide a reason to
Appeal 2019-002391
Application 15/047,999

6
combine the references. The Examiner’s reasoning for the combination was
that “provid[ing] the video image to the user at the end with the alarm
condition and alarm signal for further determination” would allow the user
“to see and know where the image with alarm condition and alarm signal
faster.” Final Act. 3-4. We determine that the Examiner provided a rationale
to combine Natale and Kogane having a rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
Claims 7−12 and 21−32
With respect to independent claim 7, (as well as independent claims
21 and 27 of commensurate scope), Appellant argues that Natale fails to
teach receiving, by software executing on a first device in communication
with a first network, a first notification of an alarm condition; and receiving,
by software executing on a second device in communication with a second
network, a second notification of the alarm condition, as the claim requires.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that even if Natale teaches an RF signal
indicative of an alarm condition transmitted by an RF transmitter, and the
same device sending an alarm signal over cable 31, Natale does not teach the
RF signal being sent to or received by a first device and the alarm signal
being sent to or received by a second device. Appeal Br. 8.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner cites to Figure 5 of Natale,
which shows remote detector 17 connected by cable 31 to CPU 53, and
receiver 51 also connected to CPU 53. The Examiner has not pointed to a
Appeal 2019-002391
Application 15/047,999

7
teaching in Natale or Kogane of receipt of notification of an alarm signal by
two devices over two respective networks.
Claims 13−20
With respect to independent claim 13, Appellant asserts that Kogane
fails to teach its control server or keyboard “allowing . . . remote access to
the video of at least the portion of the premises associated with the alarm
condition.” Appeal Br. 9−10. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s cited
teaching, in Kogane, that “the control server receives a keyword from a
keyboard 46 to search the corresponding set of data in the data base 47,” and
“if the operator judges an alarm is in error, the operator operates the
keyboard 46 to store mark data” does not disclose allowing remote access to
the video of at least the portion of the premises associated with the alarm
condition. Appeal Br. 9−10.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner identifies a
teaching in Kogane that an operator “can command which image is to be
displayed . . . . The operator operates the keyboard 46 to display the image
from one of the camera units 1 by imputing the domain name of the camera
unit 1.” We agree that Kogane’s teaching that an operator can choose what
video of alarm conditions to display suggests allowing remote access to the
video of the portion of the premises associated with the alarm condition.
Ans. 7.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner did not provide a reason to
combine the references. The Examiner determined that modifying Natale to
include the teachings of Kogane, to “provide the video image to the user at
the end with the alarm condition and alarm signal,” would allow the user to
“see and know where the image with alarm condition and alarm signal
Appeal 2019-002391
Application 15/047,999

8
faster.” We determine that the Examiner provided a rationale to combine
Natale and Kogane having a rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
Obviousness - Conclusion
We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1−6, 13−20, and
33−39 over Natale and Kogane.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7−12 and
21−32.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Kogane qualifies as prior art.
2. The combination of Natale and Kogane teaches that one or more of
receiving a first notification of an alarm condition, or receiving a video, is
substantially in real time and via a first network.
3. The combination of Natale and Kogane does not teach or suggest
receiving, by software executing on a first device, a first notification of an
alarm condition, and receiving, by software executing on a second device, a
second notification of the alarm condition.
4. The combination of Natale and Kogane suggests allowing, by a
remote device, remote access to the video of at least the portion of the
premises associated with the alarm condition.
Appeal 2019-002391
Application 15/047,999

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1−39 103 Natale, Kogane 1−6, 13−20,
33−39
7−12,
21−32
Overall
Outcome

1−6, 13−20,
33−39
7−12,
21−32

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1−6, 13−20, and 33−39 is
affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7−12 and 21−32 is
reversed.
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 IN PART