Ex Parte Gefen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

12907607 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/907,607 10/19/2010 Smadar Gefen
94470 7590 12/26/2018
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP
150 Broadway
Suite 702
New York, NY 10038
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.
40189/02002(11-DIS-086) 2315
EXAMINER
LE, LONG HUYNH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
mmarcin@fkmiplaw.com
preisch@fkmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SMADAR GEFEN, GREGORY HOUSE, and
YUECHENG ZHANG 1
Appeal2017-002964
Application 12/907,607
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13, 15-31, and 33--41. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A system for analyzing a video sequence from a moveable
camera imaging an event, comprising:
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Disney Enterprises, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-002964
Application 12/907 ,607
a tracking system tracking past positions of a tracked
object in the video sequence and tracking positions of two or
more stationary reference objects in the video sequence;
a trail updater updating a trail, wherein the trail comprises
the past positions of the tracked object, further wherein the
updating is based on the positions of the two or more reference
objects in the video sequence relative to the past positions of the
tracked object in the video sequence; and
a camera controller controlling a field of view of the
moveable camera based on the trail of the tracked object, wherein
controlling comprises at least one of steering the entire moveable
camera or adjusting a position of the entire moveable camera.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 11, 15, 17, 19-22, 31, 35, and 39-41 are rejected as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Elangovan et al. (US
2009/0028439 Al; publ. Jan. 29, 2009) (hereinafter "Elangovan"), in view
ofBroemmelsiek et al. (US 2002/0030741 Al; publ. Mar. 14, 2002)
(hereinafter "Broemmelsiek").
2. Claims 13, 24--27, 29-30, and 33-34 stand rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Elangovan in view of
Broemmelsiek, and further in view of Wagg et al. (US 2009/0059007 Al;
publ. Mar. 5, 2009) (hereinafter "Wagg").
3. Claims 16, 18, and 36-38 stand rejected as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Elangovan in view ofBroemmelsiek, and further in
view of Rosser et al. (US 5,808,695; iss. Sept. 15, 1998) (hereinafter
"Rosser").
2
Appeal2017-002964
Application 12/907 ,607
4. Claims 3 and 23 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Elangovan, in view of Broemmelsiek, and further in view of
Sabol et al. (US 2011/0081043 Al; publ. Apr. 7, 2011)
(hereinafter "Sabol").
5. Claims 4--6 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Elangovan in view of Broemmelsiek, and further in view of
Distante et al. (US 2009/0060352 Al; publ. Mar. 5, 2009) (hereinafter
"Distante").
6. Claims 7 and 9-10 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) over Elangovan in view of Broemmelsiek, in view of
Distante, and further in view of Wagg.
7. Claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
over Elangovan in view of Broemmelsiek, in view of Distante, in view of
Wagg, and further in view of Aman et al. (US 2007/0279494 Al; publ. Dec.
6, 2007) (hereinafter "Aman").
8. Claim 28 is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
over Elangovan in view of Broemmelsiek, in view of Wagg, and further in
view of Aman.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports Appellants' position. We thus reverse each rejection for reasons
provided by Appellants in the record.
We agree with Appellants that Elangovan does not suggest the aspect
of the claimed subject matter of "a tracking system tracking past positions of
3
Appeal2017-002964
Application 12/907 ,607
a tracked object in the video sequence and tracking positions of two or more
stationary reference objects in the video sequence" for the reasons provided
by Appellants in the record. Appeal Br. 3-7. Reply Br. 6. The Examiner
does not rely upon Broemmelsiek to cure this stated deficiency. We thus
reverse Rejection 1. The Examiner also does not rely upon any of the
additionally applied references set forth in Rejections 2-8 to cure this
deficiency of Elangovan. We thus reverse Rejections 2-8 for the same
reasons.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
REVERSED
4