Ex Parte Kingsley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13227575 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/227,575 09/08/2011 Scott Michael Kingsley A2000-732919(APC-0393) 5771
79680 7590 12/30/2016
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
A2000
One Main Street, Suite 1100
Cambridge, MA 02142
EXAMINER
DULEY, JANESE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
docketing @ L ALaw .com
gengelson @ LALaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT MICHAEL KINGSLEY
Appeal 2016-002095
Application 13/227,575
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to managing coverage area of cameras
within a data center. (Abstract.)
Appeal 2016-002095
Application 13/227,575
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for managing at least one camera having
a coverage area within a data center, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a computer, identification information for
at least one data center device installed in a fixed position
within the coverage area of the at least one camera, the at least
one data center device including at least one rack and the
identification information including an identifier for the at least
one data center device;
associating the at least one data center device with the at
least one camera based on the identification information for the
at least one data center device;
displaying at least one image captured by the at least one
camera associated with the at least one data center device in
response to the data center management system detecting an
event associated with the at least one data center device; and
superimposing on the at least one image the identifier for
the at least one data center device.
Claims 1—6, 9-14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Paul (US 2011/0087559 Al; Apr. 14, 2011), Zhao
(US 2009/0113323 Al; Apr. 30, 2009), and Milinusic (US 7,242,295 Bl;
July 10, 2007).
Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Paul, Zhao, Milinusic, and Barker (US 2012/0313781 Al;
Dec. 13,2012).
Claims 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Paul, Zhao, Milinusic, Barker, and Childers (US 7,392,309 B2;
June 24, 2008).
2
Appeal 2016-002095
Application 13/227,575
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Paul, Zhao, Milinusic, and Ives (US 2008/0317021 Al;
Dec. 25, 2008).
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejection—Paul, Zhao, and Milinusic
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 5—6; see
also Reply Br. 3—5) that the Examiner improperly combined Paul, Zhao, and
Milinusic.
The Examiner found that the Manufacturing Surveillance System
(MSS) server of Paul, for monitoring a manufacturing facility in which a
production run can be tracked with radio-frequency identification (RFID)
tags, corresponds to the limitation “obtaining, by a computer . . .
identification information . . . within the coverage area of the at least one
camera.” (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner further found that the rack cross
section of Zhao, as illustrated in Figure 10, corresponds to the limitation
“obtaining, by a computer, identification information for at least one data
center device installed in a fixed position ... the at least one data center
device including at least one rack and the identification information
including an identifier for the at least one data center device.” {Id. at 4.)
The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious ... to modify the
teachings of Paul to include at least one data center device installed in a
fixed position [a]nd storing configuration as taught by Zhao” (Final Act. 5)
and “one of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify Paul based on Zhao
for observing a device, a data center device in fixed position, in operating
environment, a data center” (Ans. 20). We agree with the Examiner.
3
Appeal 2016-002095
Application 13/227,575
Paul relates to “an image system located at a client facility for
observing a facility.” (Abstract.) Figure 1 of Paul illustrates Manufacturing
Compliance System (MCS) 20 (113), including Manufacturing Surveillance
System (MSS) 26 located at the manufacturer’s facility (1 49), which
“provides the ability for Merchants 28 to schedule and view live or recorded
Video-On-Demand videos 30 of the various stages of manufacturing,
packaging, assembly, inspection etc. of their products” (150). Paul explains
that “[i]n any section of a factory or stage of a production run, local area
transmissions from RFIDs are set to trigger cameras on and off’ and “[tjhese
tags are identified and linked to specific purchase order requests, products,
or productions runs.” (1235.) Paul further explains that “[although this
invention is described in relation to a preferred operating environment,
namely, manufacturing, this invention is not intended to be limited to such a
preferred environment unless specifically mentioned in the claims.” (1 49.)
Because MSS 26 of Paul provides the ability to view a facility, such that
products can be identified using RFID tags, Paul teaches or at least suggests
the limitation “obtaining, by a computer . . . identification information . . .
within the coverage area of the at least one camera.”
Zhao relates to “[d]ata center data associated with multiple systems
and/or sources . . . integrated into a single system to aid efficient operation
of a data center.” (Abstract.) Figure 7 of Zhao illustrates a top view of a
data center. (1 46.) Figure 10 of Zhao further illustrates data with respect to
a rack cross section, including “rack slots, server names, power consumption
as well as temperature and humidity at different locations.” (151.) Because
Zhao relates to a data center, including the identification of rack slots, Zhao
teaches or suggests the limitation “obtaining, by a computer, identification
4
Appeal 2016-002095
Application 13/227,575
information for at least one data center device installed in a fixed position
... the at least one data center device including at least one rack and the
identification information including an identifier for the at least one data
center device.”
The combination of Paul and Zhao is nothing more than the simple
substitution of using the Manufacturing Surveillance System of Paul to
monitor the data center Zhao, rather than the facility of Paul, to yield
predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 5; see also
Ans. 20) that modifying Paul to monitor the rack slots of Zhao would have
been obvious.
Appellant argues that “Paul provides a surveillance system of
cameras, software, and computer systems that is configured to allow remote
‘merchants’ to participate in a ‘virtual visit’ to monitor their products
through various stages of manufacturing, packaging, assembly, inspection
etc. in a production facility” and “[i]t is not clear how a data center device of
Zhao could be added to Paul without interfering with either the surveillance
of the production line or operation of the production facility.” (App. Br. 5.)
Similarly, Appellant argues that “the Examiner has provided no reason as to
why one would add a data center device or a data center rack to the system
of Paul” and “[installing at least one data center device in a fixed position
for the purposes of storing and analyzing the efficiency of different rack
layouts is of absolutely no concern to Paul.” (Id.) However, the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning for combining Paul and Zhao was based upon
modifying Paul to monitor the rack slots of Zhao, rather than the bodily
5
Appeal 2016-002095
Application 13/227,575
incorporation of the rack slots of Zhao into the facility of Paul. (Final
Act. 5; see also Ans. 20.)
Appellant further argues that “Paul elaborates . . . about other types of
operating environments where the disclosed compliance system can be
applied (besides ‘buyer and seller’ arrangements), including remote access
to grade school classrooms and audits of university classes” and “[a] person
of skill in the art would therefore not consider the alternative ‘operating
environments’ of Paul to extend to a data center environment.” (Reply
Br. 3; see also id. at 4.) Similarly, Appellant argues “the teachings of Paul
are not conducive to devices installed in a fixed position, as they are in a
data center environment.” (Reply Br. 3; see also id. at 4—5.) Contrary to
Appellant’s arguments, Paul is not limited only to compliance because Paul
broadly relates to “an image system located at a client facility for observing
a facility” (Abstract) and states that “[although this invention is described in
relation to a preferred operating environment, namely, manufacturing, this
invention is not intended to be limited to such a preferred environment
unless specifically mentioned in the claims” (| 49).
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Paul, Zhao, and
Milinusic to reject claims 1—6, 9—14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—6, 9—14, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
§103 Rejection—Paul, Zhao, Milinusic, and Barker
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claims 7 and 15 separately (App. Br. 7), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
6
Appeal 2016-002095
Application 13/227,575
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant merely argues that
“[e]ach of claims 7 . . . [and] 15 . . . depends from one of claims 1 and 10
and has also been rejected based on the improper combination of Paul, Zhao,
and Milinusic.” (App. Br. 7.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for
the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 10, from which claims 7
and 16 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Paul, Zhao, Milinusic, and Childers
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of claims 18—20
separately (App. Br. 6—7), the arguments presented do not point out with
particularity or explain why the limitations of these claims are separately
patentable. Instead, Appellant merely argues that “[t]he rejection of
independent claim 18 is based on the same improper combination of Paul
and Zhao” and “[njeither Milinusic nor Childers remedy the deficiencies
associated with the combination of Paul and Zhao.” {Id. at 6.) We are not
persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to
claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Paul, Zhao, Milinusic, and Ives
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claims 8 and 16 separately (App. Br. 7), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant merely argues that
“[e]ach of claims . . . 8 . . . and 16 depends from one of claims 1 and 10 and
has also been rejected based on the improper combination of Paul, Zhao, and
Milinusic.” (App. Br. 7.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
7
Appeal 2016-002095
Application 13/227,575
reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 10, from which claims 8 and
16 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8