Ex Parte Drive et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

12253684 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/253,684 10/17/2008
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
09/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marine Drive
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.
H0018849 4874/108091 9873
EXAMINER
ASHRAF, WASEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
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 MARINE DRIVE,
RAJESHKUMAR TRAPP ALI RAMASWAMY SETHURAMAN,
and SHANMUGAM SEL V ARAJAN
Appeal2014-009591
Application 12/253,684
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23, 25, 26, and 28. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, 19-23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Curtner (US
2006/0239645 Al; pub. Oct. 26, 2006), Naidoo (US 2002/0147982 Al; pub.
Oct. 10, 2002), Grosvenor (US 2005/0031296 Al; pub. Feb. 10, 2005), and
Bean (US 2003/0038830 Al; pub. Feb. 27, 2003). Final Act. 6-17.
Appeal2014-009591
Application 12/253,684
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Curtner, Naidoo, Grosvenor,
Bean, and Li (US 7,499,077 B2; iss. Mar. 3, 2009). Final Act. 17-18.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Curtner, Naidoo, Grosvenor, Bean, and Belknap
(US 6,763,377 Bl; iss. Jul. 13, 2004). Final Act. 19.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Curtner, Naidoo, Grosvenor, Bean, and Pea (US
2004/0125133 Al; pub. Jul. 1, 2004). Final Act. 20.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "summarizing input surveillance
video sequences." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A computer-based method comprising:
receiving an input surveillance video sequence from at
least one video signal source in a monitored region, the input
surveillance video sequence being comprised of a plurality of
frames;
receiving a sensor triggering time point signal from at
least one sensor of a plurality of sensors including at least one
door sensor in the monitored region, the at least one sensor in
the monitored area measuring a physical quantity of the door in
the monitored region, the sensor triggering time point signal
indicating a sensor triggering time point, the sensor triggering
time point being a first time point at which the at least one
sensor in the monitored region is triggered;
identifying a first frame F 1 from the frames comprising
the received input surveillance video sequence, the first frame
F 1 being determined on the basis of the sensor triggering time
point;
2
Appeal2014-009591
Application 12/253,684
identitying a second frame F2 from the frames
comprising the received input surveillance video sequence, the
second frame F2 being determined on the basis of an event
cessation time point of the at least one sensor;
identifying a third frame F3 from the frames comprising
the received input surveillance video sequence, the third frame
F3 being identified on the basis of a predetermined time point
that is subsequent to the event cessation time point;
providing a display window for displaying a plurality of
video segments summarized from the input surveillance video
sequence; and
displaying each of the plurality of video segments within
a respective view port in the display window in a tiled fashion
and in a single row where a temporal order of the plurality of
video segments is represented by the spatial order of the
plurality of video segments within the respective ports in the
display window, the spatial order including a first port
displaying one or more consecutive frames from a first video
segment, the first video segment bounded by a frame of a
predetermined duration before the first frame F 1 and the first
frame F 1, a second port displaying one or more consecutive
frames from a second video segment, the second video segment
bounded by the first frame F 1 and the second frame F2 and a
third port displaying one or more consecutive frames from a
third video segment, the third video segment displaying frames
bounded by the second frame F2 and the third frame F3.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 5-8, 12-15, 19-23, AND 28 OVER
CURTNER, NAIDOO, GROSVENOR, AND BEAN
The Examiner finds Curtner, Naidoo, Grosvenor, and Bean teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 6-10.
3
Appeal2014-009591
Application 12/253,684
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. "Naidoo et al. is merely directed to a system that detects an
alarm condition and transfers video associated with that condition to a data
center. However, there is no disclosure of the segmentation of video as
under the claimed invention." App. Br. 16.
11. "Grosvenor is merely directed to displaying video based upon
saliency metrics and Bean et al. to the simultaneous display of a video
sequence in time-offset windows. As above, there is no disclosure of the
segmentation of video as under the claimed invention." App. Br. 16.
111. "Curtner et al., Naidoo et al. and Grosvenor are merely directed
to identifying video segments and Bean et al. to the simultaneous display of
a video sequence in time-offset windows. None of the cited references
display related segments as under the claimed invention." App. Br. 17.
IV.
Since Curtner et al. merely uses the input from the DVSS as an
indicator that something must be tracked, Curtner et al. does not
disclose the step of (and apparatus for) "receiving a sensor
triggering time point signal from at least one sensor of a
plurality of sensors including at least one door sensor in the
monitored region ... ; identifying a first frame F 1 ... on the basis
of the sensor trigging time point; identifying a second frame F2
... ; and identifying a third frame F3."
App. Br. 17.
v. "The reason that the rejections are improper is because none of
the cited references are directed to the problem solved by the claimed
invention. The problem solved is that of summarizing detected alarm
events. Since the problem is not recognized, there would be no reason to
combine the references." App. Br. 21.
4
Appeal2014-009591
Application 12/253,684
vi. ''Neither Curtner et al. or Naidoo et al. disclose the use of a
particular sensor to define frames F 1, F2 and F3. Both Curtner et al. and
Naidoo et al. are directed to motion sensing. However motion sensing is not
directed to any particular location or sensor." Reply Br. 3.
vii. "[T]he claimed invention is directed to a very specific display
for the segments associated with frames F 1, F2 and F3. This is not disclosed
by Curtner et al. and Naidoo et al." Reply Br. 3.
vni. "[N]one of the cited references disclose the identification of the
three frames F 1, F2 and F3 based upon activation of a particular sensor.
None of the references disclose the particular display features of the claims
based upon the temporal order associated with activation of the sensor."
Reply Br. 5.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner finds Curtner teaches the recited receiving an
input surveillance video sequence, identifying a first frame F 1, identifying a
second frame F2, and identifying a third frame F3; Naidoo teaches the
recited receiving a sensor triggering time point signal; Grosvenor teaches the
recited providing a display window and displaying each of the plurality of
video segments; and Bean teaches the recited displaying in a tiled fashion in
5
Appeal2014-009591
Application 12/253,684
a single row. Final Act. 6-10. We agree with and adopt these findings as
our own. We also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's reasons
for combining the references. Final Act. 8-10; see also Ans. 2-5.
Regarding Appellants' arguments i.-iv., vii., and viii., these
arguments do not show any error in the Examiner's findings because
Appellants either argue references individually whereas the Examiner relied
on the combined teachings of the references or Appellants' arguments are
not responsive to the Examiner's fact findings, adopted by us above.
Regarding displaying, Grosvenor teaches the recited providing a display
window and displaying each of the plurality of video segments and Bean
teaches the recited displaying in a tiled fashion in a single row. Final Act. 9-
10. Regarding a particular sensor, Naidoo teaches the recited receiving a
sensor triggering time point signal, and teaches a door sensor. Final Act. 8.
Regarding Appellants' argument v., this argument does not show any
error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness because the
Examiner provided an articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning
explaining why the claimed invention would have been obvious. Final Act.
8-10; see also Ans. 5.
Regarding Appellants' argument vi., this argument does not show any
error in the Examiner's findings because Naidoo teaches the recited
receiving a sensor triggering time point signal, and teaches a door sensor.
Final Act. 8 (citing Naidoo i-fi-16, 9, 36-38).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 5-8, 12-15, 19-23, and 28, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
6
Appeal2014-009591
Application 12/253,684
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, AND 18 OVER
CURTNER, NAIDOO, GROSVENOR, BEAN, AND LI
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for claims 3, 4, 10,
11, 17, and 18. See App. Br. 15-22. Reply Br. 1---6.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 10, 11,
17, and 18.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 25 OVER CURTNER, NAIDOO,
GROSVENOR, BEAN, AND BELKNAP
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for claim 25. See
App. Br. 15-22, Reply Br. 1-6.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 25.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 26 OVER CURTNER, NAIDOO,
GROSVENOR, BEAN, AND PEA
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for claim 26. See
App. Br. 15-22, Reply Br. 1-6.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 26.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23, 25,
26, and 28 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
7