Sensormatic Electronics, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 7, 2021

2020003076 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 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.
14/741,102 06/16/2015 Ian Christopher Westmacott 0270.0060US1/
S-VI-00007US
1147
103122 7590 09/07/2021
HoustonHogle LLP
Joseph Houston, HoustonHogle LLP
1666 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 12
Lexington, MA 02420
EXAMINER
LEE, Y YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2419
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2021 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):
docketing@houstonllp.com
gerald.bluhm@jci.com
grant.houston@houstonllp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN CHRISTOPHER WESTMACOTT

Appeal 2020-003076
Application 14/741,102
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–12, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
Appeal Br. 1. Claims 13–37 have been cancelled. Id. at 13 (Claims App.).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest in this
appeal is Sensormatic Electronics, LLC. See Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003076
Application 14/741,102

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates generally to the tracking of
mobile devices and the users thereof. Spec. ¶ 1. Appellant’s Specification
describes:
A system and method for the melding of information
from tracking systems and surveillance camera systems uses the
tracking information as a means for indexing and organizing the
image information from the surveillance camera systems. Video
clips from surveillance cameras are accessed while tracking
positions of user devices. This can enable the access of the
image information using the tracked positions of the user
devices.
Abstr.
Illustrative Claim 1
1. A method for accessing image information from
surveillance cameras, the method comprising:
tracking positions of user devices by the user devices
providing position information to a tracking system;
the tracking system requesting new position information
from the user devices by sending requests to the user devices and
the user devices receiving the requests and replying with the
position information of the user devices;
an image information call-up system updating a user
device position history database based on the position
information gathered by the tracking system and by reference to
a camera configuration database that stores the fields of view for
each of the surveillance cameras;

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed March 5, 2019 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed November 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 15, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief,
filed March 16, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003076
Application 14/741,102

3
acquiring image information from surveillance cameras;
and
enabling the access of the image information using the
tracked positions of the user devices by the image information
call-up system accessing the user device position history
database that is indexed by device identifier for users of the user
devices or the user devices, which are assigned to the users.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.) (disputed claim limitations emphasized).

REJECTION
Claims 1–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated
by Chin et al. (US 7,777,783 B1, issued Aug. 17, 2010) (“Chin”). Final Act.
2–3.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. Throughout this opinion, we give the claim limitations the
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.

Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of Claim 1
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), did the Examiner err
by finding that Chin expressly or inherently discloses or describes the
following disputed limitation of claim 1:
the tracking system requesting new position information from the
user devices by sending requests to the user devices and the user
Appeal 2020-003076
Application 14/741,102

4
devices receiving the requests and replying with the position
information of the user devices?
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).3
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claims is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior
art reference, and arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil. Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In support of the anticipation rejection, the Examiner cites to Chin’s
column 10, lines 31–33 as purportedly disclosing the “position information
from the user devices” limitation of claim 1 by describing a “portable
camera [that] may be included in a cellular telephone, personal digital
assistant, communication device, or the like.” See Final Act. 2; see also
Ans. 3–4. The Examiner finds that Chin’s video tracking system receives
location information from the camera in the cellular telephone via a GPS
input. Final Act. 2 (citing Chin Fig. 5); Ans. 3 (citing Chin col. 10, ll. 13–
19, and ll. 30, 31).
In particular, the Examiner refers to Chin’s Figure 2 and the
corresponding passages in column 10 to support its position:
Video Tracking System 200 includes a GPS (global positioning
system) Input 255 configured to receive location and optional
orientation information from a camera, such as a member of
Cameras 105. For example, GPS Input 255 may be configured to
receive information regarding the location of a portable member
of Cameras 105. . . . These topological relationships are
optionally determined in real-time and updated as the portable
camera is moved.
Chin col. 10, ll. 13–19 and 29–31. See Ans. 3–4.

3 Independent claim 7 recites the disputed limitations of claim 1 using
similar language having commensurate scope. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-003076
Application 14/741,102

5
As explained by the Appellant, in the claimed invention, “[b]ecause
the users 108 are carrying trackable devices, such as portable computing
devices, e.g., a smart phone 109-1, their position and thus path P can be
determined by the tracking system 106.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added). In
other words, the claimed invention of the present claim 1 requires the
tracked individual to carry a user device so that the tracking system can track
the position of the user device. Id.
Furthermore, Appellant contends that “Chin does not have a way of
updating user device position information by sending requests to user
devices and the device replying.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2 (arguing the
same). Appellant contends Chin’s GPS input of Figure 2 “seems to be an
interface that receives GPS information from the cameras of the surveillance
system rather than user devices of the tracked users.” Reply Br. 2.
In particular, Appellant contends:
The key point, however, is the Chen [sic] positioning
system detects the position of the cameras.
In contradistinction, the present claimed invention
requires tracking the position of user devices. These would be
user devices carried by a target, for example, in the parlance of
the Chin patent. Access to the image information is enabled using
the tracked positions of these user devices, in the present
invention.
Appeal Br. 5 (emphases added). We agree with Appellant.
As an initial matter, we turn to the Appellant’s Figures and
Specification to interpret the limitation in dispute. Figure 1 is reproduced
below.
Appeal 2020-003076
Application 14/741,102

6

Figure 1, reproduced above, is a schematic diagram showing the
tracked coordinate space of a building. Spec. ¶ 16.
Referring to Figure 1 above, Appellant’s Specification discloses:
[I]n the example of a user or tracked individual 108-1 leaving
their office and walking through the hallways 64 of the building
50, their path P extends through the hallways and periodically
overlaps with the fields of view of a series of surveillance
cameras. Because the user 108-1 is carrying a trackable device,
such as a portable computing device, e.g., a smart phone 109-1,
their position and thus path P can be determined by the tracking
system 106. This path is stored to the user device position history
database 120. In the illustrated example, the path extends through
the camera fields of view 102-9-F to 102-6-F to 102-3-F to 102-
2-F to 102-1-F until the user 108-1 leaves the tracked coordinate
space 50-1.
Id. ¶ 37 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-003076
Application 14/741,102

7
Appellant’s Specification also discloses the following in relation to
the method steps illustrated in Figure 3:
[T]he the tracking system 106 requests new position information
for the participating user devices in step 252. In one example,
this is a request that is sent to the user devices 109 through a
cellular network, or a Wi-Fi packet network. In one example, the
user devices 109 execute a positioning app 260 that receives the
request and replies with position information. This can be the
position within the coordinate space 50-1, or it can be other
position information such as a latitude and longitude and height
triplet, that is converted into the coordinate space of the tracked
coordinate space 50-1 or used directly. In any case, the position
information is received from the user device in step 254. In
general, different technologies can be used to generate the
position information such as geo positioning (global positioning
system (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, BDS, etc.)), geo-sensor,
cellular position information or even geo-magnetically derived
position information.
Spec. ¶ 48 (referencing Fig. 3) (emphases added).
Accordingly, we construe the limitation “the tracking system
requesting new position information from the user devices by sending
requests to the user devices and the user devices receiving the requests and
replying with the position information of the user devices” as requiring three
specific steps: (1) the tracking system sends a request for position
information to the user devices (such as a smart phone); (2) the user devices
(smart phone) receive the request; and then (3) the user devices (smart
phone) reply with the position information.
Appeal 2020-003076
Application 14/741,102

8
Turning now to the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 5 of Chin, which is
reproduce below.

Figure 5 illustrates Video Tracking Interface 300 including interactive
Map 510 of Facility 100. Chin, 10:36–40.
Referring to Figure 5 of Chin, reproduced above, Chin does not
disclose that the target (shown as the stick figure) is carrying a tracking
device. Instead, Chin provides tracking of the target through different
cameras 105 that are oriented in different locations throughout the facility.
We agree with Appellant as our interpretation of the cited portions of
Chin (Appeal Br. 3–8) coincide with that of Appellant. The Examiner has
not shown sufficiently (Ans. 3–4), nor do we find, that column 10 or Figure
5 of Chin discloses or describes the disputed features of claim 1. Also, the
Examiner’s findings are not consistent with what claim 1 requires because
Appeal 2020-003076
Application 14/741,102

9
Chin fails to disclose that Video Tracking System 200 receives location
information from a camera other than Cameras 105 positioned in different
locations throughout the facility.
Thus, we find the record before us supports Appellant’s contentions
that the Examiner has not established that Chin expressly or inherently
discloses or describes the disputed “tracking system requesting new position
information from the user devices by sending requests to the user devices
and the user devices receiving the requests and replying with the position
information of the user devices” limitation of independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claim 1, and independent claim 7, which recites commensurate
limitations. Because we reverse the rejection of each independent claims 1
and 7 on appeal, we also reverse the rejection of each associated dependent
claim—specifically, claims 2–6 and 8–12.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chin.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12 102(a)(1) Chin 1–12

REVERSED