Ex Parte Corbett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2014

11348840 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS GRANT CORBETT, TIMOTHY JAMES DYE,
and DANIEL JAN DEREN
____________

Appeal 2011-013699
Application 11/348,840
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-013699
Application 11/348,840

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-29, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
1. An integrated video surveillance system comprising:
at least one alarm monitoring center, wherein each said alarm
monitoring center includes a main control panel with a video recorder
interface;
at least one subscriber, wherein each said subscriber is electrically
connected to a control module;
at least one mobile unit, wherein each said mobile unit includes at
least one first electronic display and each said mobile unit is electrically
connected to a wireless access network;
at least one video camera for providing video data of a predetermined
area; and
at least one computer network, which includes a global computer
network, that is operatively connected between said at least one alarm
monitoring center, said at least one subscriber, said at least one video camera
and said at least one mobile unit through said wireless access network;
wherein said at least one alarm monitoring center is configured to
receive said video data from said at least one video camera and further
configured to send said video data to said at least one subscriber and said at
least one mobile unit.

Prior Art
Kirmuss US 2003/0095688 A1 May 22, 2003
Van Wagner US 2005/0078195 A1 Apr. 14, 2005
Monroe US 6,970,183 B1 Nov. 29, 2005
Bellinson US 2007/0047641 A1 Mar. 1, 2007

Appeal 2011-013699
Application 11/348,840

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 2-5, 18-20, 24, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Claims 1, 6-12, 14-17, 22, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Monroe.
Claims 13, 25, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Monroe and Kirmuss.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Monroe and Bellinson.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Monroe and Van Wagner.

ANALYSIS
Section 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 2-5, 18-20, 24,
and 28
Appellants contend paragraph 19 of Appellants’ Specification, which
states “this security policy control device 28 makes it possible for
surveillance video data streams to cross firewalls such that they are
transmitted to a global computer network,” provides written description
support for “said first security policy control device is not a firewall” as
recited in claim 2. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 11-12. The Examiner finds
firewalls prevent unauthorized computers from accessing a network;
therefore, the security control devices 28, 38, 58 disclosed by Appellants’
Specification function to allow surveillance data to cross, but prevent
unauthorized computers from accessing the corresponding alarm monitoring
center 20, emergency center 30, and subscriber 50 networks, which makes
Appeal 2011-013699
Application 11/348,840

4
the security control devices “firewalls” within the meaning of claim 2. The
Examiner concludes Appellants’ Specification does not provide written
description support for “said first security policy control device is not a
firewall.” Ans. 33-35.
Appellants have not provided a definition of “security policy control
device” that excludes a firewall. The phrase in paragraph 19 that “security
policy control device 28 makes it possible for surveillance video data
streams to cross firewalls [and be] received by the alarm monitoring center
20” implies that some type of device, or “firewall,” prevents other data
streams from reaching alarm monitoring center 20. Given that security
policy control device 28 allows surveillance data to pass, the Examiner
reasonably concludes that security policy control device 28, rather than
buffer 26, control panel 22, display monitor 23, video recorder interface 25,
or server 24, prevents other data from passing to the alarm monitoring center
20. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s
Answer. Ans. 4-6, 33-35. We sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Appellants do not present arguments for
separate patentability of claims 3-5, 18-20, 24, and 28, which fall with claim
2.

Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 6-10, 12, 14-16, and 22
The Examiner finds Figures 2-4, 6, 8a-8i, and 9, and the
corresponding text in the detailed description of Monroe teaches the
limitations of claim 1. Ans. 35-38. Appellants contend the Figure on pages
11 and 37 of the Examiner’s Answer is not found in Monroe and conclude
the Examiner used impermissible hindsight to reject claim 1. App. Br. 13-
Appeal 2011-013699
Application 11/348,840

5
15; Reply Br. 15-17. However, each of the elements shown in the Figure on
pages 11 and 37 of the Answer is taught by Monroe, as explained by the
Examiner. Ans. 8-12, 35-38. Connecting the servers, computers, video
cameras, and mobile units taught by Monroe to a network as taught by
Monroe represents the combination of familiar elements according to known
methods that does no more than yield the predictable result of a networked
computer system.
Appellants contend the Examiner’s definition of “subscriber” recited
in claim 1 is inconsistent with the definition of “subscriber” in Appellants’
Specification. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 18-19. Appellants’ Specification
does not provide an explicit definition of “subscriber” that excludes a device
electrically connected to a control module. We agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 40-42) that Monroe teaches a “subscriber” within the meaning of
claim 1.
Appellants contend Monroe does not teach sending video data from an
alarm monitoring center, then from there to a subscriber and a mobile unit.
App. Br. 16-20; Reply Br. 14. The Examiner finds sending video data from
video cameras to a given computer on the network, then to other computers
on the network, was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
invention. Ans. 42-44. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given
by the Examiner.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact made in the Examiner’s
Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present
Appeal 2011-013699
Application 11/348,840

6
arguments for separate patentability of claims 6-10, 12, 14-16, and 22, which
fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claim 11
Appellants contend Monroe does not teach “each said subscriber
includes an interface for receiving input from at least one alarm sensor” as
recited in claim 11. App. Br. 23-25. The Examiner finds Monroe teaches
this limitation. Ans. 13-14.
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s
Answer. We sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 17
Appellants contend Monroe does not teach “at least one emergency
center, wherein each said emergency center includes a dispatch control panel
with a second video recorder interface” as recited in claim 17. App. Br. 27.
The Examiner finds Monroe teaches this limitation. Ans. 15-16.
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s
Answer. We sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 13, 25, and 29
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 13, 25, and 29, which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claim 21
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claim 21, which falls with claim 1.
Appeal 2011-013699
Application 11/348,840

7

Section 103 rejection of claim 23
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claim 23, which falls with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 26 and 27
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claim 26 (App.
Br. 28-29) similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find
unpersuasive. We sustain the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 27,
which falls with claim 26.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-29 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

bab