Ex Parte Gopinath

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

12435828 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/435,828 0510512009
92556 7590
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
08/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vivek Gopinath
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.
H0022652/4874/l 08288 4183
EXAMINER
CHAMBERS, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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 VIVEK GOPINATH 1
Appeal2014-008232
Application 12/435,828
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
T , 1 , • 1nrroaucnon
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's non-
final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellant discloses a method that includes "providing a network
video camera coupled to the security system through a network, detecting a
predetermined activity and increasing a video quality parameter of video
1 Appellant identifies Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in
interest.
Appeal2014-008232
Application 12/435,828
transmitted between the network camera and the security system in response
to the detected activity for a predetermined period of time." Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method of operating a security system comprising:
providing a network video camera coupled to the security
system through a network, the network video camera receiving
video from a field of view of the network video camera;
a processor of the network video camera that processes
the received video from the field of view to provide processed
video with a video quality parameter that is different than the
received video and transmitting the processed video to the
security system;
detecting a predetermined activity of an intruder; and
the processor of the network video camera dynamically
adjusting the video quality parameter of the processed video of
the network video camera that is transmitted between the
network camera and the security system in response to the
detected activity of the intruder.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 20, and 21under35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DuMas et al. (US 7,495,687 B2,
issued Feb. 24, 2009), Brooks et al. (US 7,339,993 Bl, issued Mar. 4, 2008),
and Anderson et al. (US 2007/0103543 Al, published May 10, 2007). Non-
Final Act. 3-8.
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over DuMas, Anderson, Brooks, and
Herberger et al. (US 2008/0016185 Al, published Jan. 17, 2008). Non-Final
Act. 8-10.
2
Appeal2014-008232
Application 12/435,828
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of DuMas, Anderson,
and Brooks teaches or suggests a "processor of the network video camera
dynamically adjusting the video quality parameter of the processed video of
the network video camera that is transmitted between the network camera
and the security system in response to the detected activity of the intruder,"
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Anderson's disclosure of an
imaging subsystem that sends signaling information (such as motion
detection) to a control subsystem to activate actions (such as increasing or
decreasing a transmitted video frame rate or image resolution) teaches or
suggests responding to detecting a predetermined activity of an intruder.
Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Anderson i-f 47). The Examiner finds the DuMas
optimization of a video process for lmv-band\vidth applications and a
network communication device automatically adjusting for video quality
factors such as available bandwidth, frames per second, and a broadcast
quality setting---deployed in the context of security or public safety
situations-teaches or suggests a processor of the network video camera
dynamically adjusting the video quality parameter of the processed video of
the network video camera that is transmitted between the network camera
and the security system in response to the detected activity of the intruder.
Non-Final Act. 4 (citing DuMas Figs. 1--4, col. 6, 11. 22-35, col. 15, 11. 5-8,
col. 18, 11. 5-10, and col. 20, 11. 7-11); see also Ans. 12-13.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred:
3
Appeal2014-008232
Application 12/435,828
[R]ather than detecting "a predetermined event by an intruder"
as under the claimed invention, DuMas merely discloses the
detection of predetermined factors that affect the quality of
video such as "available bandwidth, frames per second and
broadcast quality settings" (DuMas, col. 15, lines 5-8) and
adjusting those factors to meet the predetermined goal of
matching the cameras to the available bandwidth.
App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. The Examiner's
findings show that DuMas teaches that video quality is affected by factors
such as frames per second. Ans. 4 (citing DuMas col. 15, 11. 5-8).
Furthermore, Anderson clearly teaches that "control subsystem 104 may
increase or decrease its transmitted frame rate of ... full motion images" or
the "resolution may be increased or decreased ... based on detected motion
or suspicious activity." Anderson i-f 47 (italics added). Thus, Anderson's
increase or decrease of frames per second teaches or suggests the adjustment
of a video quality parameter in response to a predetermined intruder activity
such as triggering a motion detector. See Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Anderson
i-f 4 7). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
DuMas, Anderson, and Brooks teaches or suggests a "processor of the
network video camera dynamically adjusting the video quality parameter of
the processed video of the network video camera that is transmitted between
the network camera and the security system in response to the detected
activity of the intruder," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 6-10, 13-17, 20, and 21, which Appellant does
not argue separately. Furthermore, Appellant does not make additional
4
Appeal2014-008232
Application 12/435,828
arguments with respect to claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19. Therefore, we also
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21.
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(±).
AFFIRMED
5