Ex Parte 6720990 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

90020001 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

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.
90/020,001 05/15/2012 6720990 11000361-WDIG-RX001 6860
27571 7590 07/01/2014
Ascenda Law Group, PC
84 W. Santa Clara St.
Suite 550
San Jose, CA 95113
EXAMINER
DESAI, RACHNA SINGH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WALKER DIGITAL, LLC1
Patent Owner, Appellant

____________

Appeal 2014-002023
Reexamination Control 90/020,001
Patent US 6,720,990 B12
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Walker Digital, LLC, is the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.

2 Issued Apr. 13, 2004 to Walker (hereinafter the “’990 Patent”).
Appeal 2014-002023
Reexamination Control 90/020,001
Patent US 6,720,990 B1

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Owner (hereinafter “Appellant”) appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134(b) and 306 from the Final Rejection of claims 1 through 44.3 App.
Br. 1. An oral hearing was conducted on this appeal on April 16, 2014. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We affirm.
We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to monitoring a remote location by a
remote viewer and rating the attentiveness of the remote viewer. See
generally ’990 Patent, Abstract.

Claim 1 under reexamination is reproduced as follows:

1. A method for monitoring a remote location, comprising:
obtaining at a server from a sensor located at a remote location, an
image of the remote location;
providing the image to a remote viewer of a viewer device;
determining a response of the remote viewer to the image;

3 In response to a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination filed Apr. 30, 2012,
seeking reexamination of independent claims 1 through 44, an Order
Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination was issued June 16, 2012,
ordering reexamination of claims 1 through 44.
Appeal 2014-002023
Reexamination Control 90/020,001
Patent US 6,720,990 B1

3
determining, based on the response, a status of the remote location,
wherein the status of the remote location is determined to be a first status if
the response is a first response, and a second status if the response is a
second response.

The Examiner’s Rejections

1. Claims 13, 15-20, 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Crain (US 4,962,473; Oct. 9, 1990).
2. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crain in view of Mersky (US 6,119,106;
Sept. 12, 2000).
3. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14, 24, 29-39, and 43-44 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crain in view of Seeley
(U.S. 6,091,771; July 18, 2000).
4. Claims 6, 7, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crain in view of Seeley and Mersky.
5. Claims 28, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Crain in view of Seeley and Moore (U.S.
5,845,268; Dec. 1, 1998).
6. Claims 1-24, 29-39, 43, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Katz (U.S. 5,412,708; May 2, 1995).
7. Claims 6, 7, 21, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Katz in view of Mersky.
8. Claims 28, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Katz in view of Moore.
Appeal 2014-002023
Reexamination Control 90/020,001
Patent US 6,720,990 B1

4
9. Claims 1-4, 8-15, 17-20, 22-27, 29-31, 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, and 44
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being anticipated by Peters
(U.S. 5,717,379; Feb. 10, 1998).
10. Claims 6, 7, 21, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Peters in view of Mersky.
11. Claims 28, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Peters in view of Moore.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-13, 14, 15-20, 22, 23, 24, 29-39, 42-44
Appellant argues that Crain fails to teach the two determining steps
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 13).4 In particular, Appellant argues that Crain
fails to teach any determination of a status based on responsiveness of a
viewer at a remote location (App. Br. 13). Appellant asserts that Crain’s
automatic display of a window is whenever a sensor registers an abnormal
event, and thus, the response is by a user—not a server (App. Br. 13).
Appellant further argues that the logging of a response, as taught by Crain, is
merely a recording of a previously determined location status and is not a
determination of such status, much less, a determination based on a viewer’s
response to an image of a remote location (App. Br. 14). Appellant raises
similar arguments with respect to claims 13 and 24.

4 Appellant addresses Claim 1 as not being anticipated by Crain. Claim 1
was rejected as obvious over Crain in view of Seeley. Nonetheless, we
address Appellant’s arguments as they apply to claim 1.
Appeal 2014-002023
Reexamination Control 90/020,001
Patent US 6,720,990 B1

5
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Crain, at column 17, lines 15-30, is properly relied upon to
teach two “separate” determinations as required by claim 1. The Examiner
finds (Ans. 16), and we agree, that Crain’s “‘response’ is analogous to a user
clicking a button on the graphical user interface of Figure 10,” similar to
Appellant’s Specification of the ’990 patent that discloses a “user response”
as “click 911 button,” (col. 6, ll. 54-56). We also agree with the Examiner
that as to the claimed “status,” the Specification of the ’990 patent is silent
on determining “a status of the remote location,” “and as such the term is
afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation commensurate with the scope
of the Specification (i.e. a state or condition)” (Ans. 17). Crain teaches (col.
17, ll. 41-45) that a status of a remote location may be determined (seen as
the logging of data related to the user’s response). Accordingly, Crain
shows two “separate” determinations: the determining of a user response
through user interface manipulation (i.e. button clicking), and the
determining of a status of a remote location through the interpretation of the
user interface manipulation and logging of data relevant to the user interface
selection (Ans. 17).
We also agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not require a
server, and thus, Appellant’s argument regarding a server is not
commensurate in scope with the claim language (App. Br. 18). Claim 13, on
the other hand, requires a server (App. Br. 20). Nonetheless, the Examiner
finds (Ans. 21), and we agree, that the request in Crain at pages 62-65
discloses the use of the environment and security processor (ESP), which is
analogous to the claimed server, as seen in the system architecture of Figure
Appeal 2014-002023
Reexamination Control 90/020,001
Patent US 6,720,990 B1

6
1. The ESP “operates to control the operation of the computers located at
the [remote] console,” (col. 20, ll. 9-21). Crain discloses the determining of
a user response through user interface manipulation (i.e., button clicking),
and the determining of a status of a remote location through the
interpretation of the user interface manipulation and logging of data relevant
to the user interface selection; and as these actions are governed by the ESP,
the determination is thus made by a server, as claimed (Ans. 21).
In view of the above discussion, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of appealed claims 1, 13, and 24. We also affirm the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-12, 14, 15-20, 22, 23, 29-39, and 42-44.

Claim 21
Appellant argues Mersky is concerned with computerized systems that
allow customers to make bill payments to creditors from remote sites and,
contrary to the rationale put forth in the Final Office Action, is in no way
related to payroll transactions between an employer and an employee as the
Examiner hypothesizes for the security officer of Crain (App. Br. 17).
We do not agree. “The user of the workstation of Crain is persistently
referred to as a ‘security officer,’ a title that infers employment, and
therefore, payment for performance of job duties, such as the viewing of an
image on surveillance monitor 64 of Fig[ure] 4” (Ans. 25). Insofar as Crain
is silent on such payment, Mersky is specifically included to provide a
teaching related to the exchange of money for goods and services, such as
bill payments to creditors (Ans. 25). Thus, the combination for Crain and
Mersky necessarily teaches a working security officer as in Crain would
Appeal 2014-002023
Reexamination Control 90/020,001
Patent US 6,720,990 B1

7
therefore be entitled to payment for services rendered, commensurate with
the scope of claim 21 (Ans. 25).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
Claims 28, 40, and 41
Appellant asserts (App. Br. 20) that Moore describes a computer-
based parking system that can include video monitors to visually inspect cars
parked within parking stalls (col. 10, ll. 61-63). Appellant argues that
noticeably absent from this discussion is any querying of any operator
concerning whether the operator sees a vehicle in images of the parking stall
(App. Br. 20). The Advisory Action contends that adding Moore’s teaching
of a parking meter capable of transmitting video of a monitored location
(parking space) to an offsite installation (col. 10, ll. 27-50) “to the teachings
of Crain and Seeley would necessarily result in the querying of a viewer as
to the nature of the relevant images” without any adequate support for this
contention (App. Br. 20).
We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner that Moore teaches a
parking meter capable of transmitting video of a monitored remote location
(parking space) to an off-site installation (col. 10, ll. 27-50). The Examiner
contends that Crain, Seeley, and Moore teach analogous art (remotely
monitoring areas of interest), and further that incorporating the monitored
locations of Moore (parking spaces) into the system of Crain and Seeley
would necessarily result in the querying of a viewer as to the nature of the
relevant images (i.e. whether or not a vehicle is perceived at the monitored
location) which are the images of interest (Ans. 29).
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 28, 40, and 41.
Appeal 2014-002023
Reexamination Control 90/020,001
Patent US 6,720,990 B1

8

Cumulative Proposed Rejections
Because our decision is dispositive regarding patentability of the
claims based on the above addressed references, we need not reach the
merits of the Examiner’s decision with respect to other prior art rejections
based on Katz and Peters. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2009).

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1 through 44.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 44.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE

Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

ELD

Appeal 2014-002023
Reexamination Control 90/020,001
Patent US 6,720,990 B1

9
FOR PATENT OWNER:

ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
84 W. SANTA CLARA ST.
SUITE 550
SAN JOSE CA 95113

FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C.
UNITED PLAZA, SUITE 1800
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, P A 19103