Ex Parte Worrill

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

13566777 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/566,777
90545 7590
HONEYWELL/STW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
08/03/2012
12/25/2018
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joshua Worrill
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.
H0031126-1161.1670101 4615
EXAMINER
TRAN, TRANGU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
Honeywell. USPTO@STWiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSHUA WORRILL 1
Appeal2018-005635
Application 13/566,777
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN A.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1, 3-12, 14--17, 19, and 20, 3 all
1 The Application Data Sheet names Joshua Worrill as the inventor. The
Appeal Brief names Dipak J. Shah as the inventor. App. Br. 3 ("An
assignment from the inventor, Dipak J. Shah, conveying all right, title and
interest in the invention to Honeywell International Inc. has been recorded at
Reel 029136, Frame 0722"). Applicant is advised to correct the Record.
2 Appellant states the real party in interest is Honeywell International Inc.
App. Br. 3.
3 The present application, filed before March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2018-005635
Application 13/566,777
pending claims. App. Br. 2; Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for managing video data.
See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 11, and 1 7 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of claim 1, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. A method for managing video data in a DVM
system, the method including:
providing a user interface for allowing an operator to
view a plurality of video display objects, wherein the plurality
of display objects are each simultaneously displaying live video
data captured at a camera of the DVM system;
via the user interface, providing access to one or more
camera groups, each camera group including one or more
constituent cameras that are all providing live video streaming;
defining the one or more camera groups based on
dynamic parameters which change automatically over time such
that the constituent cameras that are in a given group change
over time; and
4 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 1, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed May 9, 2018, "App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
March 9, 2018, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed May 18, 2017, "Final
Act."), and the Specification (filed August 3, 2012, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
2
Appeal2018-005635
Application 13/566,777
updating the constituent cameras that make up each
camera group in response to changes in the dynamic
parameters.
References and Rejections5
1. Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14--17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. I02(b) as anticipated by Marchese (US
2005/0200714 Al; Sept. 15, 2005). Final Act. 5-8.
2. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. I03(a)
as obvious over Marchese and Metzger (US 7,576,770 B2; Aug. 18,
2009). Final Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of Claims 1, 3-12, 14--17, 19, and 20
in light of Appellant arguments that the Examiner erred.
CLAIMS 1, 3-12, 14--17, 19, AND 20: ANTICIPATION BY MARCHESE.
Simultaneous display of a plurality of live video display objects.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "providing a user interface for allowing an
operator to view a plurality of video display objects, wherein the plurality of
display objects are each simultaneously displaying live video data captured
at a camera of the DVM system." Appellant contends Marchese fails to
5 Claims 1--4, 6, and 7 stand as objected to in view of various informalities.
The Board lacks jurisdiction over claim objections. We, therefore, decline
to reach the merits thereof.
3
Appeal2018-005635
Application 13/566,777
teach simultaneous display, but rather teaches a series of images are
sequentially updated. App. Br. 5.
The Examiner finds Marchese discloses in Figure 1 a 3x3 grid of
windows for the display of images from up to nine cameras. Final Act 3.
The Examiner finds Marchese further discloses:
Once the screen display 44 has been configured, the display
loop begins in which the program accesses and displays images
from the cameras 24 on the user's screen, with the software
periodically updating the display of each image 48. Starting
with the first camera displayed, the program sequentially access
each camera 24 and displays the received image 48 in the box
46 associated with that camera.
Final Act. 3--4 (quoting Marchese, ,r 53) (Examiner's emphasis). The
Examiner further finds Marchese discloses:
The process runs through the display loop once for each camera
24, incrementing the current frame ( display box) for each
iteration until it has retrieved and displayed a snapshot image
from each camera. It then continues looping through the
display loop, starting again at the first camera, and runs through
the process continuously, sequentially polling each camera and
updating each window 46 with an updated image 48 received
from the associated camera.
Id., 4 (quoting Marchese, ,r 53) (present emphasis). The Examiner further
quotes: "[ t ]his allows the user to see the sequential polling process and is
especially useful where the images change little if at all from one update to
the next." Id. (quoting Marchese, ,r 53) (present emphasis). The Examiner
then finds:
From the above passages, it is clear that the claimed 'providing
a user interface for allowing an operator to view a plurality of
video display objects, wherein the plurality of display objects
are each configured to simultaneously display live video data
4
Appeal2018-005635
Application 13/566,777
captured at a camera of the DVM system' is anticipated by the
display grid 44 shown in FIG. 1."
Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues the sequential display, disclosed by Marchese, is not
the same as the claimed simultaneous display. App. Br. 5, 6. Appellant
further argues Marchese discloses snapshot images, not live video data. Id.,
6.
The Answer quotes additional passages of Marchese:
Streaminterva1Seconds: Number of seconds to allow the
streamer to run before closing: O= Run forever 1 to 84600= 1
sec to 24 hrs run time before closing.
Ans. 7 ( quoting Marchese, ,r,r 98-100). From these additional passages, the
Examiner finds "the screen display 44 of Marchese allows an operator to
view a plurality of video display objects, wherein the plurality of display
objects are each simultaneously display live video data captured at a camera
(operated sequentially) of the DVM system as required by claim 1." Ans. 7
( emphasis added).
The disputed limitation of independent Claim 1 recites: "wherein the
plurality of display objects are each simultaneously displaying live video
data." The Marchese passages cited by the Examiner disclose "until it has
retrieved and displayed a snapshot image from each camera." Marchese,
,r 53. We do not find a "snapshot image" discloses ( or even suggests) "live
video data," as claimed. The cited Marchese passages further disclose "the
program sequentially access [ sic "accesses"] each camera 24" and
"sequentially polling each camera." Marchese, ,r 53. We do not find
"sequentially polling" discloses "simultaneously displaying live video data,"
as claimed. Independent Claims 11 and 1 7 contain commensurate
5
Appeal2018-005635
Application 13/566,777
recitations. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14--17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appellant and the Examiner contest all claims (including Claims 8
and 9, rejected as obvious over Marchese and Metzger) over Marchese in
view of the limitations of Claim 1. App. Br. 11-12; Ans. 9-19. In view of
the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12,
14--17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or of Claims 8 and 9 under§ 103.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14--17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 is REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6