Pelco, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2020

2019002672 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2020)

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.
13/827,460 03/14/2013 Derek G. Springer 865-26 9468
24336 7590 08/28/2020
TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
401 Broadhollow Road, Suite 402
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
HODGES, SUSAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2020 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@tb-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEREK G. SPRINGER
Appeal 2019-002672
Application 13/827,460
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and BARBARA A.
BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal Br. 2.
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Pelco, Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002672
Application 13/827,460
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “operating a video surveillance system.”
Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of operating a video surveillance
system, comprising:
detecting a period of active control of the video
surveillance system by an operator, the period of active control
being a state of the video surveillance system that is determined
based on detecting whether manual selection and adjustment of
camera views of the video surveillance system by the operator
exceeds a minimum threshold of time;
monitoring a plurality of operations performed by the
operator during the period of active control;
generating a record of the plurality of operations
performed by the operator, the record including at least one
display time of a view selected by the operator during the
plurality of operations;
configuring a tour automatically during the period of
active control based on at least a subset of the plurality of
operations and the at least one display time, the subset
including manual selection and adjustment of camera views of
the video surveillance system by the operator, the configuring
comprising automatically determining which operations to
exclude from the tour based on predetermined thresholds; and
enabling the video surveillance system to conduct the
tour outside the period of active control, the conducting
including selecting and adjusting the camera views of the video
surveillance system.
Appeal 2019-002672
Application 13/827,460
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rui US 7,349,008 B2 Mar. 25, 2008
Drive US 2010/0033566 A1 Feb.11, 2010
Barcay US 2010/0042923 A1 Feb. 18, 2010
McCormack US 2011/0149072 A1 June 23, 2011
Kurosawa US 8,312,133 B2 Nov. 13, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 7–9, 12–15, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Drive, Rui, and Kurosawa. Final Act. 3–12.
Claims 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Drive, Rui, Kurosawa, and McCormack. Final Act. 12–14.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Drive,
Rui, Kurosawa, and Barcay. Final Act. 14–15.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–5, 7–9, 12–15, and 17–20 over
Drive, Rui, and Kurosawa
The Examiner finds Drive, Rui, and Kurosawa teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 3–6. The Examiner finds Drive and Rui teach most
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner finds Kurosawa’s
“manipulation input by the user” teaches “automatically determining which
operations to exclude from the tour based on predetermined thresholds.” See
Appeal 2019-002672
Application 13/827,460
4
Final Act. 6 (emphasis omitted) (citing Kurosawa Fig. 12, col. 11, ll. 33–44).
The Examiner reasons
it would be prima fac[i]e obvious that one possessing ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize the
advantage of further excluding operations based on a threshold
as suggested by Kurosawa with the inventions of Drive and Rui
in order to specify a time interval for capturing the video.
Final Act. 6 (citing Kurosawa col. 11, ll. 54–55); see also Ans. 7.
Among other arguments, Appellant presents the following principal
arguments:
“Kurosawa is directed to a video distribution system in which
Internet-based user control of an imaging device (i.e., camera unit) may be
improved by presenting a different camera control interface to the user based
on the amount of network congestion.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Kurosawa col.
1, ll. 26–39, col. 7, l. 63–col. 8, l. 9, Figs. 7, 8).
These “manipulation inputs,” however, are merely input signals
that may eventually result in camera operations. They represent
camera operations that the user is attempting to perform, not
camera operations that the user has already performed (i.e.,
logged camera operations). This is made clear from step S63
where Kurosawa explains that the CPU (301) determines
whether “the inputted value is within a range which can be set
up or is a value which can be set up.” See col. 11, ll. 35-39. In
other words, the CPU (301) checks whether the user inputs are
values within the allowed ranges of the surveillance system and,
if not, it “outputs an error message in step S64” and disallows
the user inputs. The disallowed user inputs thus never become a
camera operation and logically cannot be a camera operation
that is excluded from the tour. A person of ordinary skill in the
art would plainly understand that if the user inputs never become
a camera operation, then they could never have been included in
the tour to begin with.
Appeal Br. 10–11; see also Reply Br. 8.
Appeal 2019-002672
Application 13/827,460
5
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Kurosawa and Drive
teach “automatically determining which operations to exclude from the tour
based on predetermined thresholds” as recited in claim 1.
Kurosawa discloses
[i]n step S62, the CPU 301 waits for the manipulation
input by the user, and when the input is made, receives the input.
After that, in step S63, the CPU 301 judges whether or not the
inputted value is within a range which can be set up or is a value
which can be set up, and if the inputted value is not within the
range or the value which can be set up in step S63, outputs an
error message in step S64 and returns the values. Then, the
processing returns to step S61 for waiting for the user to input. If
the inputted value is within a range which can be set up or is a
value which can be set up, the internal data in the memory 302
is updated to the inputted value in step S65, and then the
processing returns to step S62.
Kurosawa col. 11, ll. 33–44 (emphasis added).
According to the claim language, the “operations” that are determined
to be excluded from the tour are “operations performed by the operator
during the period of active control.” Claim 1. In contrast, Kurosawa’s
“manipulation input” that results in an error message is a desired operation
of the user that is not performed at all.
Thus, we determine Kurosawa does not teach “automatically
determining which operations to exclude from the tour based on
predetermined thresholds” as recited in claim 1.
Further, Kurosawa discloses that the values include “a Q-factor for
defining a frame rate specifying a time interval for capturing the video and a
quality of compression.” Kurosawa col. 11, ll. 53–55. For the same reasons,
we also do not see how an input value for a Q-factor which may result in
either setting the Q-factor or an error message relates to “automatically
Appeal 2019-002672
Application 13/827,460
6
determining which operations to exclude from the tour based on
predetermined thresholds” as recited in claim 1.
To be clear, to the extent Kurosawa teaches, in some sense, excluding
values, we determine such teachings are insufficient to suggest modifying
Drive to “automatically determin[e] which operations to exclude from the
tour based on predetermined thresholds” as recited in claim 1.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 7–9,
12–15, which depend from claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
17, which recites “automatically determining which operations to exclude
from the tour based on predetermined thresholds,” for the same reasons
discussed above when addressing claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
18, which recites “automatically determining which operations to exclude
from the tour based on predetermined thresholds,” for the same reasons
discussed above when addressing claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 20,
which depend from claim 1.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6, 10, and 11 over Drive, Rui,
Kurosawa, and McCormack
Claims 6, 10, and 11 indirectly depend from claim 1. The Examiner
does not find McCormack cures the deficiency of Drive, Rui, and Kurosawa.
See Final Act. 12–14; see also Ans. 12–16.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 10,
and 11.
Appeal 2019-002672
Application 13/827,460
7

The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 16 over Drive, Rui, Kurosawa, and
Barcay
Claim 16 depends from claim 1. The Examiner does not find Barcay
cures the deficiency of Drive, Rui, and Kurosawa. See Final Act. 14–15; see
also Ans. 16–18.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–9,
12–15, 17–
20
103(a) Drive, Rui,
Kurosawa
1–5, 7–9,
12–15, 17–
20
6, 10, 11 103(a) Drive, Rui,
Kurosawa,
McCormack
6, 10, 11
16 103(a) Drive, Rui,
Kurosawa, Barcay
16
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED