Ex Parte AddyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 201610733727 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 10/733,727 12/11/2003 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 09/23/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kenneth L. Addy 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. H0006399/4874/l 07934 8574 EXAMINER DIEP, NHON THANH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com pto-chi@huschblackwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENNETH L. ADDY Appeal2015-004069 Application No. 10/733,7271 Technology Center 2400 Before MARC S. HOFF, CATHERINE SHIANG, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant's invention is a security system including intrusion security sensors provided on the perimeter of a protected space and wireless RF, battery operated, low current drain video cameras elsewhere in the protected space. Each video camera is capable of operating in a standby inactive video mode having low electrical power consumption, or in an active video 1 The real party in interest is Honeywell International, Inc. Appeal2015-004069 Application No. 10/733,727 recording mode. Upon detection of an alarm event by a security sensor, the security sensor transmits an RF security/alarm event message, causing the security system video cameras to awaken from standby inactive video mode into the active video recording mode. See Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A security system comprising: a security system control panel; a plurality of battery operated security video cameras, each having an RF receiver and operating in a standby inactive video mode, providing a low electrical power consumption, or in an active video recording mode that consumes a greater amount of electrical power; a plurality of security sensors for detecting a security/alarm event, each located elsewhere with respect to the plurality of video cameras and each having an RF transmitter for transmitting an RF security/alarm event message indicating detection of a security/alarm event; wherein an alarm event detected by a security sensor of the security system causes the security sensor to immediately activate the security system cameras by transmitting an RF security/alarm event initiating message to the security system cameras which causes the security system video cameras to awaken from the standby inactive video mode into the active video recording mode and collect pre-alarm video and wherein the initiating message is also received by the security system control panel for processing. 2 Appeal2015-004069 Application No. 10/733,727 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Naidoo et al. Kanayama et al. Stuart US 6,658,091 Bl US 2005/0154598 Al US 7,012,523 B2 Dec. 2, 2003 July 14, 2005 Mar. 14, 2006 Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanayama, Stuart, and Naidoo. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Sep. 17, 2014), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 19, 2015), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 28, 2014) for their respective details. ISSUE Does Kanayama disclose or suggest, in response to a detected alarm event, a security sensor immediately transmitting an RF security/alarm event initiating message to the security system cameras which causes the security system cameras to awaken from the standby inactive state into the active video recording mode and collect pre-alarm video? ANALYSIS Appellant's argument that Kanayama fails to disclose or suggest "wherein an alarm event detected by a security sensor of the security system causes the security sensor to immediately activate the security system cameras by transmitting an RF security/alarm event initiating message to the security system cameras" is not persuasive to show Examiner error in the rejection. See App. Br. 6. Appellant contends that Kanayama transmits alarm 3 Appeal2015-004069 Application No. 10/733,727 messages to the security service manager terminal, rather than the cameras. Id. We do not agree that Kanayama does not teach corresponding functions. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Kanayama discloses that "trespasser sensor 12b is activated around the clock; upon detection of an abnormality, it sends a detection signal to the sensor control section 21 to request that the security camera 12a start operating." Ans. 2, 7; Kanayama i-f 104. "The sensor control section 21, as it receives the operation start request for the security camera 12a from the trespasser sensor 12b (S211 ), sends a camera image capture instruction to the security camera 12a (S212). In accordance with the instruction, the security camera 12a starts image capturing and sends captured camera images." Kanayama i-f 105. We agree with the Examiner that the claims do not require transmission of the event initiating message directly to the security system cameras without transmission to any intermediate devices. Ans. 7. Appellant's contention that the claim term "immediately" does not allow for delay associated with relaying the initiating message through an intermediate device is also unpersuasive. See Reply Br. 3. Appellant has not cited to any portion of the Specification indicating a specific amount of time corresponding to the word "immediately." Appellant has provided no evidence that Kanayama does not function to transmit starting instructions to its cameras "immediately" within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. We find that the combination of Kanayama, Stuart, and Naidoo teaches all the elements of claims 1-20. We sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. 4 Appeal2015-004069 Application No. 10/733,727 CONCLUSION Kanayama teaches, in response to a detected alarm event, a security sensor immediately transmitting an RF security/alarm event initiating message to the security system cameras which causes the security system cameras to awaken from the standby inactive state into the active video recording mode and collect pre-alarm video. ORDER The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation