Ex Parte Angell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12336440 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/336,440 12/16/2008 Robert Lee Angell
79230 7590 04/01/2016
Law Office of Jim Boice
3839 Bee Cave Road
Suite 201
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
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.
END920080332US 1 1893
EXAMINER
STERRETT, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
J ennifer@BoiceIP.com
Emily@BoiceIP.com
Jim@BoiceIP.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT LEE ANGELL, ROBERT R. FRIEDLANDER, and
JAMES R. KRAEMER
Appeal2013-003767
Application 12/336,440
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and,
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2013-003767
Application 12/336,440
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to data processing
systems and a method and apparatus for scoring deportment and
comportment cohorts. (Spec., paras. 1 and 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A processor-implemented method for scoring a
deportment and comportment cohort, the processor-
implemented method comprising:
a processor, responsive to receiving the deportment and
comportment cohort, wherein the deportment and comportment
cohort comprises a set of conduct attributes that describes at
least one of a facial expression, vocalization, body language,
and social interactions of a member in a set of members of the
deportment and comportment cohort, calculating a deportment
and comportment cohort score;
the processor normalizing the deportment and
comportment cohort score to calculate an overall deportment
and comportment cohort score, wherein the deportment and
comportment cohort score is normalized using patterns of
historical conduct of members of the deportment and
comportment cohort, and wherein the overall deportment and
comportment cohort score indicates an appropriateness of
conduct displayed by a member of the deportment and
comportment cohort; and
the processor executing a predefined action based on the
overall deportment and comportment cohort score.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
2
Appeal2013-003767
Application 12/336,440
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Siebel (NILS T. SIEBEL & STEPHEN J. MAYBANK, THE
ADVISOR VISUAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 103-111) and Oredsson (Anders
Oredsson, Cognitive Video Surveillance: An ANN/CBR Hybrid Approach
(June 2007) (Norwegian University of Science and Technology).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence 1.
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 USC§ 112,first paragraph
The Examiner has determined that the Specification is not enabling
for failure for the Specification to support "monitoring of the behavior of the
subject ... which is then scored, normalized, and then accordingly triggering
[sic] an action" (Final Act. 8-12; Ans. 4--12).
In contrast, the Appellants have argued that the claims do not require
"monitoring" and that the rejection is improper (App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2,
3).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, the Examiner has properly cited
the Wands factors in this analysis of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. However, as noted by the Appellants, the cited claims do not
actually require the "monitoring" noted in the rejection. Rather, the claims
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2013-003767
Application 12/336,440
• ,.. 1 ' ' • ' • • '1 1 ' ' reqmre, ror examp1e, --a processor, responsive w recezvzng me aeponment
and component cohort." Regardless, after a review of the Specification
(which includes Figure 4 with cameras and biometric sensors) and
consideration of the Wands factors, we find the Specification to be enabling
in regard to the "monitoring of the behavior of the subject ... which is then
scored, normalized, and then accordingly trigger[ s] an action" cited by the
Examiner. For these reasons, this rejection is not sustained.
Rejection under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the prior art fails to disclose "adjusting a cohort score according to the
historical conduct of persons being observed" and particularly with regard to
if the observed behavior is appropriate (App. Br. 10, 11 ). This argument in
the Appeal is directed to the precise claim language for "normalizing the
deportment and comportment score to calculate an overall deportment and
comportment score ... using patterns of historical conduct of members of
the ... cohort ... wherein the ... score indicates an appropriateness of the
conduct displayed by a member of the ... cohort" in claim 1 (emphases
added).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is found in Oredsson at Table 4.1, and Sections 4.4.5, 4.4.6, 4.8
and 4.11(Final14, 15; Ans. 12, 13).
We agree with the Examiner. The Appellants have argued that the
claim limitation at issue requires that the scores are normalized in
accordance with the observed ''persons' history," but, in contrast, the claim
only requires the "normaliz[ ation] using patterns of historical conduct of the
4
Appeal2013-003767
Application 12/336,440
members ... of the cohort" which can be a group. Oredsson at Section 4.11
discloses a situation in a subway system where video surveillance is used
and human behaviors that are tracked can be used to determine behaviors,
such as leaving a bag, which requires "normalization" to the "patterns of
historical conduct of [other] members" who displayed similar patterns in
leaving a bag, and also the "threshold function" would serve as a level of
appropriateness of the conduct. As this argued claim limitation has been
shown by Oredsson, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants
have provided the same or similar arguments for claims 3-5, 7-15, and 17-
20, and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given
above.
With regard to claim 2, the Appellants argue the cited prior art fails to
disclose "the processor identifying the appropriateness of conduct according
to a percentage of observed persons who exhibit the conduct attribute" (App.
Br. 12; Reply Br. 3,4). In contrast, the Examiner has cited to the Oredsson
section 4.11 at page 55 and the threshold function (Final Act. 18, 19; Ans.
14). The citation at page 55 of Oredsson shows that a threshold is reached,
for example, if a certain percentage of persons left a bag. Here, the relation
to the appropriateness of conduct (whether the guard is notified) is based on
a percentage of observed persons who exhibit the conduct attribute of
leaving the bag, thereby meeting the argued claim limitation. For this reason
the rejection of claim 2 is sustained.
The Appellants have also argued that the rejection of claim 6, in
which the "appropriateness of conduct is dependent on a type of location
from which the set of conduct attributes are detected" (App. Br. 13, 14;
Reply Br. 5). Here, the claim is met by the use of Oredsson's system in
5
Appeal2013-003767
Application 12/336,440
which the location is set for a train station. Regardless, determmmg the
appropriateness of conduct based on the type of location would have been
readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. For these above reasons
the rejection of claim 6 is sustained.
With regard to claim 16, the Appellants argue that the cited prior art
does not disclose the use of "chemical sensors" as required by the claim
(App. Br. 15, Reply Br. 5). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that
chemical sensors are known in the art and would have been obvious to use in
the cited combination (Final Act. 24, 25; Ans. 16). We agree with and adopt
this finding and rationale set forth by the Examiner. Here, the use of
chemical sensors is well known in the art and would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to detect smoke, gas, and chemicals that could
cause damage from inappropriate behavior in the cited combination. For
this reason, the rejection of claim 16 is sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the enablement argument.
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Siebel and Oredsson.
6
Appeal2013-003767
Application 12/336,440
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is sustained.
AFFIRMED
7