Ex Parte Cohen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

11782439 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ISAAC COHEN and JEREMY C. WILSON
____________________

Appeal 2012-007076
Application 11/782,439
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-007076
Application 11/782,439

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20 in Appeal Brief dated January 17, 2012 (App. Br. 1-2).
However, Appellants state that “[t]he rejections of claims 1-4, 6-12 and 15-
20 are the subject of this appeal” (App. Br. 2). Accordingly, Appellants do
not appeal claims 5, 13, and 14 but note that claims 5, and 14 are pending
and rejected (id.)1. The Board has no jurisdiction as to non-appealed claims,
and we consider claims 5, 13, and 14 cancelled and not before us for review.
The Examiner has the authority to cancel the non-appealed claims 5, 13, and
14. See Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential). We have jurisdiction as to claims 1-4, 6-12, and 15-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a proxy video server having a
multicast Domain Name System module which in response to a user request
for streaming video sources sends a list of the sources (including IP address
and port numbers); wherein, the server also includes on-board video
analytics functions that can normalize the capabilities of diverse video
sources available on the surveillance network (Abstract; Spec. ¶ [0018]).

1 Although claims 1-20 are finally rejected (Final Rej. 1), Appellants appeal
the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, and 5-20 (App. Br. 2). Appellants recite the
grounds of the rejection for claims 5 and 14, but not claim 13 (id.).
Appeal 2012-007076
Application 11/782,439

3
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A proxy video server for managing video surveillance data in a
network comprising one or more streaming video sources and one or more
video clients, the proxy video server comprising:

a multicast Domain Name Service (mDNS) function module
embodied as instructions executing on a processing circuit that receives
discovery requests for streaming video sources, the discovery requests
emitted by the one or more video clients on a predetermined mDNS
multicast address and, in response, the mDNS function module provides a
list of the one or more streaming video sources to the one or more video
clients including a respective IP address and port that manages the one or
more streaming video source;

a proxy video source manager embodied as instructions executing on
a processing circuit that manages the streaming video sources to appear as
virtual smart video sources to video clients;

a video client interface embodied as instructions executing on a
processing circuit that receives and interprets requests from video clients and
sending responses to video clients on behalf of the streaming video sources;

one or more video source interfaces embodied as instructions
executing on a processing circuit that sends requests to a video source using
a protocol specific to the video source and that receives and interprets
responses from a streaming video source using a protocol specific to the
streaming video source; and

a video analytics function embodied as instructions executing on a
processing circuit that provides video analytics as needed in order to present
smart camera capabilities for each streaming video source to any video
client.

Appeal 2012-007076
Application 11/782,439

4
C. REJECTION2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Acosta US 6,166,729 Dec. 26, 2000
Amini US 6,698,021 B1 Feb. 24, 2004
Welch, John C., A Rendezvous by any other name still works as easily,
Article archive, Mac Tech, 11/09/11,
http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.19/19.05/Zeroconf/index.htm
l
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Amini in view of Acosta and Welch.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Amini, Acosta, and Welch teaches or
would have suggested
a multicast Domain Name Service (mDNS) function module …
that receives discovery requests for streaming video sources,
the discovery requests emitted by the one or more video clients
on a predetermined mDNS multicast address and, in response,
the mDNS function module provides a list of the one or more
streaming video sources to the one or more video clients
including a respective IP address and port that manages the one
or more streaming video source
(claim 1, emphasis added).

2 Because the Board has no jurisdiction as to non-appealed claims, we will
not consider claims 5, 13, and 14 as being before us for review.
Appeal 2012-007076
Application 11/782,439

5
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, the function of video streamer 150 is
to convert analog video into compressed digital form for use in a digital
video surveillance system (Spec. ¶ [0010]).
2. A video client is any component of the network that makes use
of a video source for local or remote video display (e. g. a Network Video
Recorder (NVR), application software, or a web browser accessing the video
source) (¶ [0007]).
Amini
3. Amini discloses a system and method for enabling real-time
off-site video image storage and access having cameras that forward
captured video images to an off-site server through a camera server;
wherein, users are enabled to retrieve live or archived video images through
a client workstation which communicates with the off-site server over the
public Internet (Abstract; col. 3, ll. 29-41).
4. The off-site server operates as a proxy between the client
workstations and the camera servers, converting the camera control codes
into binary-coded camera control command strings that are recognizable by
the particular camera (col. 3, ll. 49-53).
5. A camera server 314 captures video signals from analog video
camera 312A and converts the signals into an appropriate digital format
(e.g., JPEG, MPEG, etc.) (col. 6, ll. 49-62).
Appeal 2012-007076
Application 11/782,439

6
Acosta
6. Acosta discloses a remote viewing system for viewing digital
images of remote locations having digital image acquisition devices;
wherein, the digital image acquisition devices couple to a network connected
digital image server device (indirectly through digital image transmission
and receiving devices) which provides access to digital images over the
network to network-enabled computers (Abstract).
7. In particular, a Central Office Video Management System
(COVMS) 16 receives each compressed image transmitted by the cameras
12, decodes the image data, and decompresses the images, providing post-
processing operations to compensate for lighting conditions and other
factors, such as image processing for object detection, object count, event
recognition (col. 8, ll. 15-21). Afterwards, the COVMS 16 compresses the
image information according to industry-standard digital image file formats
(e.g. JPEG formats) and passes the information to the World Wide Web
server 18 (col. 8, ll. 21-24).
Welch
8. Welch discloses a system including a mDNS service discovery
method which allows the end user to easily locate network services such as
printers, file servers, iTunes play lists, iChat participants, etc. (p. 1:25-26);
wherein, the user sends a request for a certain type of service to a
predetermined mDNS multicast address (224.0.0.251) and the mDNS system
sends back a list of the named instances of those services (p. 5: 18-28, 8: 36-
38, and 9:11-16), including the TCP/IP address for the service instance,
applicable port number for the instance and the target host for that service
(p. 9:11-16).
Appeal 2012-007076
Application 11/782,439

7

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 15-20
Appellants contend that Amini and Acosta “are merely directed to the
use of a web site that must be accessed by a client workstation in order to
download video” “[i]n contrast” to “the claimed invention [which] is
directed to streaming video” (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that “there is
no disclosure, whatsoever, of the use of discover requests or of the mDNS
function module in either Amini or Acosta” (id.). Appellants contend
further that “Welch does not disclose streaming video sources or proxies for
streaming video” (App. Br. 11). Appellants argue further that “none of the
cited references recognize that a proxy server could be used to discover
streaming video sources and could be used to publish the system addresses
of those sources under a common format” (App. Br. 14). Appellants finally
contend that “each of the cited references is directed to solving a different
specific problem” and “the solutions offered by cited references are based
upon principles of operation that are incompatible with the logic proposed
by the Examiner” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that since “Amini clearly teaches that
the user can retrieve video that has been archived (i.e. download a video file
for viewing) or can view the video images live in real-time (streaming
video),” “Amini clearly teaches streaming video” (Ans.33). The Examiner
notes that
Amini and Acosta were clearly cited as teaching streaming
video or to methods of routing streaming video (as detailed
above), while Welch was not cited as teaching streaming video
sources or proxies for streaming video but was cited as teaching
Appeal 2012-007076
Application 11/782,439

8
the concept of an mDNS function module used in an system
where a user needs to locate and use network services (e.g. a
video proxy service)
(Ans. 37).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not define “streaming video” and “video client”.
Appellants’ Specification discloses that the function of a video streamer
(video streaming) is to convert analog video into compressed digital format
for use in a digital video surveillance system (FF 1). The Specification also
discloses that a video client is any component of a network that receives
video data for the purpose of displaying the video data, which includes a
web browser accessing the video source (FF 2). Thus, we give claim 1 its
broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring a module relating to mDNS
which, in response to a discovery request from any network component on a
predetermined address, provides a list of the video sources that convert
analog video into a compressed digital format (including their respective IP
address and port).
Amini discloses a system and method for enabling real-time off-site
video image storage; wherein, users can retrieve live or archived video
images through a client workstation which communicates with the off-site
server over the public Internet (FF 3). The off-site server operates as a
proxy between the client workstations and the camera servers (FF 4). A
camera server captures video signals from analog video camera and converts
the signals into an appropriate digital format (FF 5). We find that the
camera server provides streaming video because it converts that analog
video into the appropriate digital format for live viewing by the user.
Appeal 2012-007076
Application 11/782,439

9
Accordingly, we find further that the system comprises a module that
receives requests from the user for streaming video from these streaming
video sources.
In addition, Acosta discloses a remote viewing system having digital
image acquisition devices that couple to a network connected digital image
server device which provides access to digital images over the network to
network-enabled computers for remote viewing of these digital images (FF
6). In particular, the COVMS compresses image information according to
industry-standard digital image file formats (FF 7). We find that the
network connected digital image server device provides streaming video;
wherein, the server comprises a module that receives requests from the user
for streaming video from the streaming video sources.
Furthermore, Welch is directed to a system including a mDNS service
discovery method which allows the end user to easily locate and user
network services by sending a request to a predetermined mDNS multicast
address; wherein, the mDNS system sends back a list of the named instances
of those services, including the TCP/IP address and applicable port number
(FF 8). We find that the system comprises a module relating to mDNS
which, in response to a discovery request from any network component on a
predetermined address, provides a list of the requested network service(s)
(including its respective IP address and port).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Amini, Acosta, and Welch at least suggests the claim limitations of claim
1.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
Appeal 2012-007076
Application 11/782,439

10
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Amini’s off-site server that enables a user to view video images in real-
time with the remote viewing system, as disclosed in Acosta, and the mDNS
module, as disclosed in Welch, produces a proxy server having a mDNS
module that responds to requests for streaming video content, which would
be obvious (Ans. 8 and 9-10; FF 3-8).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Amini in
view of Acosta, and Welch. Further, independent claims 12, 16, and 20
having similar claim language and claims 2-4, 6-11, 15, and 17-19
(depending from claims 1, 12, and 16) which have not been argued
separately, fall with claim 1.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12, and 15-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
tkl