Scenera, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2021

2020002172 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2021)

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.
15/487,416 04/13/2017 David D. Lee 33180-36746/US 6280
758 7590 07/02/2021
FENWICK & WEST LLP
SILICON VALLEY CENTER
801 CALIFORNIA STREET
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
EXAMINER
KWAN, MATTHEW K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2021 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):
PTOC@Fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte DAVID D. LEE, ANDREW AUGUSTINE WAJS,
SEUNGOH RYU, and CHIEN LIM
________________

Appeal 2020-002172
Application 15/487,416
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, 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 and 4–21, which are all of the
pending claims in the application. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Scenera, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002172
Application 15/487,416

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “marking points of
interest in scenes.” Abstract.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
1. A method implemented on a computer system for marking a
variety of sensor data and processed sensor data related to a
Scene, the method comprising:
identifying a Scene of interest based on SceneData provided by
a sensor-side technology stack that includes a group of one or
more sensor devices, the [1] SceneData including a plurality of
different types of sensor data captured from the Scene of
interest by the sensor group, the SceneData further including
additional data produced by the sensor-side technology stack
by processing and/or analysis of the captured sensor data;
generating a SceneMark that marks the Scene of interest by
referencing the SceneData, [2] wherein the SceneData for
Scenes is grouped into SceneShots that are timestamped
packages of the SceneData for the Scene, each SceneShot
includes the plurality of different types of sensor data and the
additional data for that timestamp of the Scene, and [3] the
SceneMark marks the Scene of interest by marking a SceneShot
of interest within the Scene; and
publishing the SceneMark, whereby applications can access the
SceneData for the Scene of interest via the SceneMark.
Appeal Br. 15, Claims App. (disputed limitations emphasized and
bracketing added).

Appeal 2020-002172
Application 15/487,416

3

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
MacCormack et al.
(“MacCormack”)
US 6,031,573 Feb. 29, 2000
Ebert et al.
(“Ebert”)
US 2003/0227392 A1 Dec. 11, 2003
Liu US 2008/0074540 A1 Mar. 27, 2008
Wengrovitz US 2011/0242317 A1 Oct. 6, 2011
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–14, 16, and 18–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Wengrovitz, Ebert, and MacCormack. Non-Final
Act. 2–7.
The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Wengrovitz, Ebert, MacCormack, and Liu. Non-Final Act. 8.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Non-Final Action from which this appeal was
taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 includes recitation [1]: “SceneData including a plurality of
different types of sensor data captured from the Scene of interest by the
sensor group, the SceneData further including additional data produced by
the sensor-side technology stack by processing and/or analysis of the
Appeal 2020-002172
Application 15/487,416

4

captured sensor data.” The Specification provides examples of SceneData
including a plurality of different types of sensor data by teaching that sensor
devices 210 such as cameras, depth sensor devices, temperature/thermal
sensor devices, motion sensors, and material detectors capture data. Spec. ¶ 32,
Fig. 2A.2 The Examiner finds that the digital video streams of Wengrovitz
combined with MacCormack’s capturing of video and alarm data, and with
Ebert’s use of all kinds of sensors and scanner, teaches or suggests recitation
[1]. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Wengrovitz ¶ 32, Figs. 1, 6); Ans. 10 (citing
MacCormack Figs. 1, 163; Ebert ¶¶ 16, 17, 21).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the system of
Wengrovitz “only captures one type of SENSOR DATA – the video
captured by the cameras.” Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. Even if Wengrovitz
alone only teaches use of one type of sensor data, rather than a plurality of
types of sensor data, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
reasonable reliance on MacCormack and Ebert as curing the alleged deficiency.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Wengrovitz, MacCormack, and Ebert teaches or suggests recitation [1].
Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 10.

2 Although the Specification teaches capturing a plurality of different types
of sensor data using a plurality of sensors, claim 1 recites that SceneData is
captured by “a sensor-side technology stack that includes a group of one or
more sensor devices.” Appeal Br. 15, Claims App. (emphasis added). We
are unable to discern a teaching in the Specification of a sensor device that
by itself captures a plurality of different types of sensor data. Thus, claim
1—by encompassing one sensor device that captures a plurality of different
types of sensor data—may raise issues of enablement or written description
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). In the event of further prosecution, we recommend
that Appellant and the Examiner resolve any such issues.
Appeal 2020-002172
Application 15/487,416

5

Claim 1 further includes recitation [2], “wherein the SceneData for
Scenes is grouped into SceneShots that are timestamped packages of the
SceneData for the Scene, each SceneShot includes the plurality of different
types of sensor data and the additional data for that timestamp of the Scene.”
The Examiner finds that MacCormack’s combination of multiple video
streams into a single display, with a time display embedded thereon, combined
with Ebert’s packaging of different types of object data, teaches or suggests
recitation [2]. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Ebert ¶ 11, 154), 4 (citing MacCormack
84:23–25, Fig. 163); Ans. 11 (further citing MacCormack Fig. 1 and Ebert
¶ 16, Fig. 17).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “MacCormack’s Fig.
163 may show the display of conventional video with a date and time overlay,
but that is not at least two types of SENSOR DATA plus DERIVED DATA
organized into timestamped packages.” Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 5. But as
discussed above, the combination of Wengrovitz, MacCormack, and Ebert
teaches or suggests at least two different types of sensor data. Moreover, the
Examiner’s findings show that Wengrovitz—which discloses video analytic
events that include detecting motion, a weapon, or other items of interest—
teaches or suggests additional data (i.e., data produced by the sensor-side
technology stack by processing and/or analysis of captured sensor data).
Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Wengrovitz ¶ 32); Ans. 10; Appeal Br. 11
(“Wengrovitz’ video analytics are . . . . [a]t best . . . DERIVED DATA
because they are video analytics – i.e., the result of analyzing video.”).
Appellant further argues that Ebert’s “tracking [of] the position of
physical items over time using a standardized system is unrelated to
organizing SENSOR DATA and DERIVED DATA into timestamped
Appeal 2020-002172
Application 15/487,416

6

packages.” Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner, however, merely relies on the
combination of Wengrovitz, MacCormack, and Ebert—rather than Ebert
alone—to teach or suggest that the claimed types of data to be packaged and
the use of timestamps. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing, e.g., Wengrovitz ¶ 32, Figs. 1,
6; MacCormack Fig. 163); Ans. 10 (citing MacCormack Fig. 1; Ebert ¶¶ 16,
17, 21). The Examiner persuasively relies on Ebert, which teaches receiving
not just tag-read-data but also context information, in combination with
Wengrovitz and MacCormack to teach or suggest packaging such information
in the manner of recitation [2]. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Ebert ¶¶ 11, 154).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wengrovitz,
MacCormack, and Ebert teaches or suggests recitation [2]. Id. at 3–4; Ans. 10.
Claim 1 further includes recitation [3], “the SceneMark marks the
Scene of interest by marking a SceneShot of interest within the Scene.” The
Examiner relies on the screen overlays of MacCormack and the use of
multiple identifiers in Ebert to teach or suggest this recitation. Non-Final
Act. 4 (citing MacCormack Figs. 155, 163); Ans. 11 (further citing
MacCormack Fig. 1; Ebert ¶ 16).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because MacCormack’s
“overlay is just displaying the name of the camera capturing the video. This
. . . is not related to ‘a SceneMark that marks a SceneShot of interest within
a Scene.’” Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 5–6. Even if MacCormack alone is
insufficient to teach or suggest recitation [3], the Examiner’s findings with
respect to Ebert—which discloses tracking tagged items and generating an
event that includes a tag identifier—are both reasonable and unrebutted.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wengrovitz,
Appeal 2020-002172
Application 15/487,416

7

MacCormack, and Ebert teaches or suggests recitation [3]. Non-Final Act.
4; Ans. 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 4–21,
which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 14.
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–14, 16,
18–21
103 Wengrovitz, Ebert,
MacCormack
1, 4–14,
16, 18–21

15, 17 103 Wengrovitz, Ebert,
MacCormack, Liu
15, 17
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–21

No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED