Ex Parte Leblond

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12883754 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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.
12/883,754 09/16/2010 Raymond G. Leblond LEVE-1-0002 5445
25315 7590 04/03/2017
LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 4800
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com
docketing-patent@lowegrahamjones.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND G. LEBLOND
Appeal 2016-0085471
Application 12/883,754
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies Leverage Information Systems as the real party
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-008547
Application 12/883,754
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—3, 5—9, 12, and 16—30, which are all
the pending claims. App. Br. 1. Claims 4, 10-11, and 13—15 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm and designate this as a new ground of rejection under 37
C.F.R§ 41.50(b).
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to “[a] detection and response device
for a surveillance system.” Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added
to the disputed elements:
1. A detection and response device for automatically
selecting and presenting surveillance information collected by
one or more capture devices comprising:
one or more transceivers configured to receive data
indicating that an event has occurred;
one or more storage devices configured to store one or
more geospaces each comprising data identifying one or more
physical areas, one or more instructions associated with each of
the one or more geospaces, one or more event types, and one or
more user interface settings associated with each of the one or
more geospaces, wherein the one or more instructions
associated with each of the event geospaces are machine-
readable instructions that are linked to the event geospace and
that, when executed by a processor of the detection and
response device, cause the detection and response device to
respond differently depending on event type and location; and
2
Appeal 2016-008547
Application 12/883,754
a response system configured to automatically respond to
the occurred event based on a geospace in which the event
occurred and on a type of the event, by:
identifying an event geospace, wherein the event
geospace is one of the one or more geospaces where the
event occurred;
identifying an event type corresponding to the
event;
retrieving, according to the event type, the one or
more instructions that are associated with the event
geospace, the instructions defining functions to be
performed in response to the event type;
executing, by the processor of the detection and
response device, the one or more instructions associated
with the event geospace to provide a response to the
event, wherein the response comprises moving at least one
of the one or more capture devices from a first position
that does not target the event geospace to a second position
to target the event geospace;
retrieving the one or more user interface settings
associated with the event geospace after the data
indicating the event has occurred has been received; and
presenting on a display a predefined view
comprising surveillance information from at least one of
the one or more capture devices according to the one or
more user interface settings associated with the event
geospace, wherein the one or more user interface settings
define a screen position for a plurality of user interface
windows on the display, each of the plurality of user
interface windows displaying a video stream therein.
App. Br. 14—15 (Claims App.).
3
Appeal 2016-008547
Application 12/883,754
B. The Rejections on Anneal
The Examiner rejects claims 1,2, 5—9, 12, and 16—30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Donovan (US 7,382,244 Bl; June 3,
2008), in view of McFarland (US 2006/0028997 Al; Feb. 9, 2006). Final
Act. 2.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Donovan, in view of McFarland, and further in view of
Vaios (US 6,271,752 Bl; Aug. 7, 2001). Final Act. 24.
ANAFYSIS
A. Claims 1-3. 5-9. 12. 16. 17. 19-27. and 29-30
Appellant argues the cited references fail to teach or suggest:
(a) “wherein the one or more instructions associated with each of the event
geospaces are machine-readable instructions that are linked to the event
geospace and that. . . cause the detection and response device to respond
differently depending on event type and location;” (b) “retrieving, according
to the event type, the one or more instructions that are associated with the
event geospace;” and (c) “executing ... the one or more instructions
associated with the event geospace to provide a response to the event;” as
recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 8
and 16. See App. Br. 8. More specifically, Appellant argues neither
Donovan’s system parameters, nor Donovan’s program code, teaches or
suggests the claimed “machine-readable instructions” and related claim
limitations because Donovan’s system parameters are not executed, and
Donovan’s program code is not linked to a “geospace” or retrieved based on
an event type. See App. Br. 9—11. Additionally, as argued by Appellant,
4
Appeal 2016-008547
Application 12/883,754
Donovan fails to teach machine-readable instructions that cause a device to
respond differently based on event type and location, because, even
assuming arguendo that Donovan teaches a system that takes different
actions upon the occurrence of a particular event, Donovan merely describes
that data is captured at a specific location, but fails to teach or suggest that
the system takes a different action based on the location of the captured data.
See App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 1—2.
With respect to Appellant’s argument regarding Donovan’s system
parameters and program code, we do not find the argument persuasive.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Donovan teaches a
system that utilizes program code in addition to system parameters that
configure which primitive events are detected and recorded by the system.
See Ans. 2—3 (citing Donovan 40:42—60, 41:9-14). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Donovan’s program code and system parameters collectively
teach the claimed “machine readable instructions.”
With respect to Appellant’s argument that Donovan fails to teach
machine-readable instructions that cause a device to “respond differently
based on [ ] event type and [ ] location,” we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not shown that Donovan teaches or suggests the
aforementioned limitation. See App. Br. 9. Although we agree with the
Examiner’s findings that Donovan teaches a system that responds to
captured data differently based on the type of event detected, and further
teaches the captured data is captured at a specific location (see Final Act. 3—
4 (citing Donovan 10:27-48, 11:42-49); see also Ans. 3), these findings are
not sufficient to establish that Donovan teaches or suggests the system
responds differently based on the location of the captured data.
5
Appeal 2016-008547
Application 12/883,754
However, Donovan also teaches the system stores the captured data
(e.g., video data) differently based on importance of the video data, and
further teaches the importance of the video data is calculated as a weighted
average of the attributes of the video data, including the location of the
camera used to capture the video data and events detected in the video data.
See Donovan 16:44—17:29. Thus, we conclude that Donovan does teach or
suggest “machine-readable instructions that. . . cause the detection and
response device to respond differently depending on event type and
location,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 8 and 16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1,8, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We further sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5—7, 9, 12, 17, 19—27, 29, and 30, not
argued separately. See App. Br. 11.
B. Claim 18
Appellant argues the cited references fail to teach or suggest
“transmitting . . . video streams to a mobile unit,” as recited in claim 18. See
App. Br. 11. More specifically, as argued by Appellant, in rejecting claim
17 (upon which claim 18 depends), the Examiner cited an access card or gun
described by Donovan as teaching the claimed “mobile unit,” yet, in
rejecting claim 18, the Examiner cites a client device that presents video as
teaching the claimed mobile unit. See App. Br. 11—12. As argued by
Appellant, the claimed “mobile unit” cannot simultaneously be Donovan’s
access card (or gun) and Donovan’s client device. See App. Br. 12. Further,
6
Appeal 2016-008547
Application 12/883,754
as argued by Appellant, Donovan does not describe transmitting video
streams to an access card or gun. See id.
We do not find this argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that claim 18 recites “a mobile unit,” as opposed to “the mobile
unit,” and thus, the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed “mobile unit” of
claim 18 as a mobile unit independent of the claimed “one or more mobile
units” of claim 17 is a reasonable interpretation. See Ans. 4—5. Further, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Donovan’s client device teaches or
suggests the claimed “mobile device” of claim 18 (see Final Act. 19), and
Appellant’s argument fails to persuasively establish any error in this finding.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
C. Claim 28
Appellant argues the cited references fail to teach or suggest
“provid[ing] a flow charting user interface configured to create the
instructions,” as recited in claim 28. See App. Br. 12. More specifically,
Appellant argues Donovan’s description of a user interface used to set or
modify system parameters does not teach the aforementioned limitation
because such an interface is not described as a flow charting user interface,
and Donovan fails to describe that the outcome of setting or modifying
system parameters is the creation of instructions. See App. Br. 12—13; Reply
Br. 3-5.
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Donovan’s description of a user interface used to set or
modify system parameters teaches or suggests “provid[ing] a flow charting
7
Appeal 2016-008547
Application 12/883,754
user interface configured to create the instructions,” as recited in claim 28,
as Donovan teaches that, when the program code is executed, the system
parameters determine which events are detected and recorded, and thus, the
setting or modifying of the system parameters ultimately results in the
creation of the instructions that cause the system to respond to a detected
event. See Final Act. 23. We also agree with the Examiner that neither
Appellant’s claims, nor Appellant’s specification, provides a definition of
“flow charting user interface” that distinguishes the aforementioned claim
limitation from the cited references. See Ans. 5 (citing Spec. 1184). Thus,
Appellant’s argument fails to persuasively establish any error in the
Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
NEW REJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
Notwithstanding our concurrence with the Examiner’s ultimate
obviousness finding regarding claims 1—3, 5—9, 12, and 16—30, we designate
our affirmance a new ground of rejection because we have relied on new
facts and reasons in support of the rejection of these claims. Compare supra
with Ans. 3 (finding column 10, lines 27-48 and column 11, lines 42-48 of
Donovan teach a detection and response device responding differently
depending on location because Donovan teaches the surveillance camera
captures data at a specific location). Our new ground of rejection
designation preserves Appellant’s procedural safeguards. In re Stepan Co.,
660 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Had the Board labeled its rejection
as a new ground of rejection, Stepan could have reopened prosecution to
address the newly-alleged deficiencies in its Declaration with the
8
Appeal 2016-008547
Application 12/883,754
examiner.”); In reLeithem, 661 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Mere
reliance on the same statutory basis and the same prior art references, alone,
is insufficient to avoid making a new ground of rejection when the Board
relies on new facts and rationales not previously raised to the applicant by
the examiner.”).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the
following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid
termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5—9, 12, and 16—30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
9