Ex Parte Burry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2016

13210447 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/210,447 08/16/2011
62095 7590 10/25/2016
FAY SHARPE I XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID A VENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Aaron M. Burry
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.
20100713USNP-XER2528US01 2138
EXAMINER
GER OLEO, FRANCIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2016 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 AARON M. BURRY, RAJA BALA, and ZHIGANG FAN
Appeal2015-007209
Application 13/210,447
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4 through 12, and 15 through 23,
which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2015-007209
Application 13/210,447
INVENTION
This invention is directed to a method to facilitate analyzing of a
video stream from a camera mounted on the side of a school bus to
determine license plate information of cars that illegally pass the school bus.
See Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method for identifying
moving vehicles that illegally pass a school bus during a bus stop,
compnsmg:
receiving a video sequence from a camera device mounted
on a school bus;
partitioning the video sequence into video segments such
that each video segment corresponds to a single bus stop and
comprises one or more video frames captured during the bus
stop;
analyzing the frames within each video segment to detect
a moving vehicle in one or more of the frames;
identifying and tagging frames in \'l1hich a moving vehicle
is detected;
identifying and tagging video segments that comprise
tagged frames;
for each detected moving vehicle, locating a license plate
on the moving vehicle;
identifying license plate information comprising the
alphanumeric characters on the license plate and the state of
origin of the license plate; and
appending metadata, which describes the license plate
information, to at least one of the tagged segment and the tagged
frame in which the license plate information is identified to
generate a violation package.
2
Appeal2015-007209
Application 13/210,447
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4 through 7, 10, 12 and 15
through 18, 21and23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Schmidt (US 5,570,127; Oct. 29, 1996), Rigney et al. (US 6,985,172 Bl;
Jan. 10, 2006) ("Rigney") and Higgins (US 7,986,339 B2; July 26, 2011).
Ans. 2---6. 1
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Schmidt, Rigney, Higgins and Huang (US
2006/0210175). Ans. 7.
The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Schmidt, Rigney, Higgins and Appellants Admitted
Prior Art. Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Schmidt, Rigney, Higgins and Jain et al. (US
2004/0239817 Al; Dec. 2, 2004) ("Jain"). Ans. 8-9.
ISSUES
Independent claims 1, 12, and 23
Appellants' arguments directed to claims 1 and 11 on pages 7 of the
Appeal Brief and page 3 of the Reply Brief, directed to the Examiner's
rejection claim 1 present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding
the combination Schmidt, Rigney, Higgins of teaches appending metadata
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief dated March 9,
2015; the Reply Brief dated July 27, 2015; and the Examiner's Answer
mailed May 26, 2015.
3
Appeal2015-007209
Application 13/210,447
that describes the license plate to the tagged segment of video segments as
recited in representative claim 1?
Appellants' arguments directed to independent claims 12 and 23, on
pages 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the Appeal Brief, present the same issue as
discussed with claim 1.
Dependent Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17
Appellants present separate arguments directed to claims 5 and 16, on
pages 8 and 10, 12, and 13 of the Appeal Brief. These arguments present us
with the following dispositive issue: did the Examiner err in finding the
combination Schmidt, Rigney, and Higgins of teaches calculating a sum
total error for pixels in each subsequent frame and comparing the sum for
each frame to a threshold as recited in claims 5 and 16?
Dependent claim 8 and 19
Appellants present separate arguments directed to claims 8 and 19, on
pages 15 through 1 7 of the Appeal Brief. These arguments present us with
the following dispositive issue: did the Examiner err in finding the
combination Schmidt, Rigney, Higgins, and Huang of teaches calculating
the frame-to-frame pixel intensity differences using the equation recited in
claims 8 and 19?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to
Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in
4
Appeal2015-007209
Application 13/210,447
the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, and 19. However, we are
not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 9 through 12 and 15,
19, and 20 through 23.
Claim 1
Appellants' arguments directed to the first issue assert that Figure 5 of
Higgins, shows presenting actual license plate information on a display that
also shows the image of the vehicle and not that the license plate information
is appended as metadata as claimed. App Br. 7. We disagree with
Appellants as the Examiner has cited more than Figure 5 to support the
finding that Higgins teaches appending metadata (data about data).
Specifically, the Examiner also cites to Higgins, Col. 25, 11. 51---61, as
teaching appending metadata. Ans. 10. We concur, with the Examiner, as
Higgins teaches imprinting textual information including the license plate
details (metadata, as it is data which describes the data license plate of
vehicle in the image) onto the photographic data. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection and we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 23. Appellants have
not presented separate arguments directed to dependent claims 4, 7, 9
through 11and15, 19, 20, and 21 accordingly we similarly sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Dependent Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17
Appellants' arguments directed to the second issue assert that Rigney
teaches generating a temporal difference image and computing a threshold
for each pixel based on variation and not calculating a total error for pixels
5
Appeal2015-007209
Application 13/210,447
in each subsequent frame. App. Br. 9. The Examiner in response cites to
Rigney, Figures 4 and 6, and the disclosure describing these figures to
support the finding that Rigney teaches the claimed calculating a sum total
error and comparing the sum total error to a threshold. Answer 11-14. We
have reviewed the teachings of Rigney cited by the Examiner and concur
with the Appellants. Rigney teaches examining the frame to frame
differences based upon each pixel and not "a sum total error for pixels in
each subsequent frame," as claimed. (Claim 5). Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 6, 16, and 17.
Dependent claim 8 and 19
Appellants' arguments directed to the third issue assert that Huang
teaches detecting changes in motion compensation component of a
compressed video signal to determine whether motion is above a threshold
and not calculating the frame-to-frame pixel intensity differences using the
equation recited in claims 8 and 19. Answer 16. The Examiner in response
to Appellants' arguments cites to Huang paragraph 20 as teaching using the
claimed equation. We disagree with the Examiner, we do not see that
paragraph 20 of Huang discusses calculating pixel intensity differences
based upon the absolute value of difference between subsequent frames.
Thus, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 8 and 19.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4, 7, 9 through 12
and 15, 19, and 20 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal2015-007209
Application 13/210,447
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 5, 6, 8, 16, 17,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7