`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Of COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PA TENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`95/001,912
`
`02/29/2012
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`7868912
`
`14342/IOC
`
`1028
`
`04/10/2012
`7590
`74712
`Muir Patent Consulting, PLLC
`9913 Georgetown Pike, Suite 200
`P.O. Box 1213
`Great Falls, VA 22066
`
`EXAMINER
`
`CAMPBELL, JOSHUA D
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`04/10/2012
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`Clifford A. Ulrich
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`Date: 4-..10, \do-
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO.: 95001912
`PATENT NO.: 7868912
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER: 3999
`ART UNIT: 3992
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified Reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no
`responsive submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed
`to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end ·
`of the communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`PTOL-2070(Rev.07-04)
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING/DENYING
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES
`REEXAMINATION
`
`Control No.
`
`95/001,912
`Examiner
`
`JOSHUA CAMPBELL
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`7868912
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`•• The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. •·
`
`The request for inter partes reexamination has been considered. Identification of the claims, the
`references relied on, and the rationale supporting the determination are attached.
`
`Attachment( s):
`
`0 PTO-892
`
`[gj PTO/SB/08
`
`□Other: __
`
`1. [gJ The request for inter partes reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`[gj An Office action is attached with this order.
`D An Office action will follow in due course.
`
`2. D The request for inter partes reexamination is DENIED.
`
`This decision is not appealable. 35 U.S.C. 312(c). Requester may seek review of a denial by petition
`to the Director of the USPTO within ONE MONTH from the mailing date hereof. 37 CFR 1.927.
`EXTENSIONS OF TIME ONLY UNDER 37 CFR 1.183. In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26(c)
`will be made to requester.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this
`Order.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2063 (08/06)
`
`Paper No. 20120404
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DECISION
`
`1)
`
`The present Request for inter partes reexamination, filed 2/29/2012, establishes a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requestor will prevail with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-22 of
`
`United States Patent Number 7,868,912 (Venetianer).
`
`References Cited in the Request
`
`2)
`
`A total of eleven references have been asserted in the request as providing teachings
`
`relevant to the claims of the Venetianer patent. These references are listed on page iv of the
`
`request. The proposed references are as follows:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Gilge- German Patent Publication No. DE 101 53 484
`
`Lipton
`
`"ObjectVideo Forensics: Activity-Based Video Indexing and Retrieval
`
`For Physical Security Applications"
`
`Courtney - U.S. Patent No. 5,969,755
`
`Black- "Wide Area Surveillance with a Multi Camera Network"
`
`Brodsky - "Visual Surveillance in Retail Stores and in the Home"
`
`Liu - "A New Network-Based Intelligent Surveillance System"
`
`Olson - "Moving Object Detection and Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart
`
`Cameras"
`
`h.
`
`Shotton - "Object Tracking and Event Recognition in Biological Microscopy
`
`Videos"
`
`i.
`
`J.
`
`Greenhill- "VIGILANT: Content-Querying of Video Surveillance Systems"
`
`Rottman German Patent Publication No. DE 198 48 49
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`k.
`
`Brown - U.S. Patent No. 7,447,331
`
`Page 3
`
`Identification of Every Claim for Which Reexamination is Requested
`
`3)
`
`The eleven references cited above are discussed in various combinations regarding claims
`
`1-22 of the Venetianer patent. Pages 17-72 of the Request detail out explanations that seek to
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that the requestor will prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`patent claims in light of the combinations of the eleven references cited above. The explanations
`
`in the Request are addressed below.
`
`Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail (RLP) on the Issue of Patentability
`
`4)
`
`The claims for which reexamination is requested will be utilized to show whether the
`
`above-cited references, taken together with the explanation provided by requester, are found to
`
`establish, or not to establish, that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail
`
`with respect to at least one of the patent claims.
`
`Issue 1 - Gilge {anticipation)
`
`5)
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 1-3 and 6:..22, as set forth on pages 2-50 of the
`
`Appendix: '912 Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of the
`
`V enetianer patent.
`
`Gilge appears to teach each and every limitation of claims 1-3 and 6-22 (see pages 2-50
`
`of the Appendix: '912 Patent Claim Charts, hereby incorporated by reference). Hence, it is
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`found that the requester has shown a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to claims 1-3
`
`and 6-22.
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of Gilge establishes that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the requester will prevail wit4 respect to claim 1-3 and 6-22.
`
`Issue 2 - Gilge (obviousness)
`
`6)
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 4 and 5, as set forth on pages 51-56 of the Appendix:
`
`'912 Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of the V enetianer patent.
`
`Gilge does not teach "wherein the second processor analyzes the attributes to detect the
`
`first event in real time" of claim 4. There is no mention in the cited portions of the reference of
`
`detecting the event in real time. The Request appears imply that such a limitation would be
`
`obvious in view of the teachings of Gilge, unfortunately the Request fails to provide any
`
`evidence or for that matter any explanation at all in support of this implication. Additionally,
`
`Gilge does not teach "a third processor, separate from the first processor and second processor,
`
`in communication with the first processor over a second communications link, the third
`
`processor configured to determine a second event that is not one of the determined attributes by
`
`analyzing a combination of the attributes transferred by the second communications link" of
`
`claim 5. There is no mention in the cited portions of the reference of a third processor separate
`
`from a first and second processor for detecting a second event. Once again, the Request appears
`
`to imply that such a limitation would be obvious in view of the teachings of Gilge, unfortunately
`
`the Request fails to provide any evidence or for that matter any explanation in support of this
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`implication. For the reasons above, the Request does not establish that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the requester will prevail with regard to claims 4 and 5, since it is deemed that
`
`Gilge does not teach the missing limitations as noted with regards to claims 4 and 5.
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of Gilge does not establish that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to claims 4 and 5.
`
`Issue 3 - Lipton (anticipation)
`
`7)
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-22, as set forth on pages 57-122 of the
`
`Appendix: '912 Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of the
`
`V enetianer patent.
`
`Lipton appears to teach each and every limitation of claims 1-4 and 6-22 (see pages 57-
`
`122 of the Appendix: '912 Patent Claim Charts, hereby incorporated by reference). Hence, it is
`
`found that the requester has shown a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to claims 1-4
`
`and 6-22.
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of Lipton establishes that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to claim 1-4 and 6-22.
`
`Issue 4 - Lipton (obviousness)
`
`8)
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 5, as set forth on pages 123-126 of the Appendix: '912
`
`Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of the Venetianer patent.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`· Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Lipton does not teach "a third processor, separate from the first processor and second
`
`processor, in communication with the first processor over a second communications link, the
`
`third processor configured to determine a second event that is not one of the determined
`
`attributes by analyzing a combination of the attributes transferred by the second communications
`
`link" of claim 5. There is no mention in the cited portions of the reference of a third processor
`
`separate from a first and second processor for detecting a second event. Once again, the Request
`
`appears to imply that such a limitation would be obvious in view of the teachings of Lipton,
`
`unfortunately the Request fails to provide any e~idence or for that matter any explanation in
`
`support of this implication. For the reasons above, the Request does not establish that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with regard to claim 5, since it is deemed
`
`that Lipton does not teach the missing limitations as noted with regards to claim 5.
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of Liptoq. does not establish that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to claim 5.
`
`Issue 5 - Courtney {anticipation)
`
`9)
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20 and 22, as set forth on
`
`pages 127-168 of the Appendix: '912 Patent.Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request t? show
`
`a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of
`
`the V enetianer patent.
`
`Courtney appears to teach each and every limitation of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-
`
`20 and 22 (see pages 127-168 of the Appendix: '912 Patent Claim Charts, hereby incorporated
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`by reference). Hence, it is found that the requester has shown a reasonable likelihood of success
`
`with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20 and 22.
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of Courtney establishes that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to claim 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13,
`
`15-20 and 22.
`
`Issue 6 - Courtney (obviousness)
`
`10)
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21, as set forth on pages 169-181 of
`
`the Appendix: '912 Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of the
`
`V enetianer patent.
`
`Courtney does not teach "wherein the first communications link comprises a network" of
`
`claim 2 or the similar limitations of claim 7, 10, 14, and 21. There is no mention in the cited
`
`portions of the reference of a communications link used to transfer the attribute stream to the
`
`processor which determines events. The Request appears imply that such a limitation would be
`
`obvious in view of the teachings of Courtney, unfortunately the Request fails to provide any
`
`evidence or for that matter any explanation at all in support of this implication. Additionally,
`
`Courtney does not teach "a third processor, separate from the first processor and second
`
`processor, in communication with the first processor over a second communications link, the
`
`third processor configured to determine a second event that is not one of the determined
`
`attributes by analyzing a combination of the attributes transferred by the second communications
`
`link" of claim 5. There is no mention in the cited portions of the reference of a third processor
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`separate from a first and second processor for detecting a second event. Once again, the Request
`
`appears to rely on the idea that such a limitation would be obvious in view of the teachings of
`
`Courtney, unfortunately the Request fails to provide any evidence or for that matter any
`
`explanation in support of this implication. For the reasons above, the Request does not establish
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with regard to claims 2, 5, 7,
`
`10, 14, and 21, since it is deemed that Courtney does not teach the missing limitations as noted
`
`with regards to claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21.
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of Courtney does not establish that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21.
`
`Issue 7 - Black <anticipation)
`
`11)
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-22, as set forth on pages 182-227 of the
`
`Appendix: '912 Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of the
`
`Venetianer patent.
`
`Black does not teach the limitations of the independent claims regarding analyzing a
`
`stream of attributes in order to detect an event. More specifically, Black does not teach:
`
`a second processor, separate from the first processor, in communication with the first
`
`communications link to receive the determined attributes transferred.from the first
`
`processor over the first communications link, which determines a first event that is not
`
`one of the determined attributes by analyzing a combination of the·received determined
`
`attributes ( claim 1)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`a processor configured to receive from the input a stream of detected attributes received
`
`over the communications channel, the attributes being attr_ibutes of one or more objects
`
`detected in a video, the processor configured to determine an event that is not one of the
`
`detected attributes by analyzing a combination of the received attributes ( claim 6)
`
`receiving a stream of detected attributes over a communications channel, the detected
`
`attributes representing attributes of an object previously detected in the video at a remote
`
`location; performing an analysis of a combination of the detected attributes to detect an
`
`event that is not one of the detected attributes without reprocessing the video (claim 9)
`
`transmitting .the stream of attributes to a second location removed from the first location
`
`for subsequent analysis, wherein the stream of attributes are transmitted to the second
`
`location over a communications channel, and wherein the stream of attributes is
`
`sufficient to allow the subsequent analysis to detect an event of the video (claim 12)
`
`an output configured to transmit the attributes determined by the processor over a
`
`communications link, wherein the output is configured to transmit the attributes to a
`
`second location removed from the processor for a subsequent analysis of a combination
`
`of the attributes at the second location, wherein the processor determines attributes
`
`independently of a subsequent analysis of a combination of attributes to determine an
`
`event that is not one of the determined attributes ( claim 18)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`The discussion in the Venetianer patent regarding the analysis that is performed in order to detect
`
`an event from a stream of attributes requires that the analysis be automatically performed by
`
`event discriminators. Event discriminators are created by translating user defined rules and
`
`responses via a rule and response definition interface.
`
`Referring now to FIG. 16b, once the video, and, if there are other sensors, the non-video
`
`primitives 161 are available, the system may detect events. The user tasks the system by
`
`defining rules 163 and corresponding responses 164 using the rule and response
`
`definition interface 162. The rules are translated into event discriminators, and the
`
`system extracts corresponding event occurrences 165. The detected event occurrences
`
`166 trigger user defined responses 167. A response may include a snapshot of a video of
`
`the detected event from video storage 168 (which may or may not be the same as video
`
`storage 1604 in FIG. 16a). The video storage 168 may be part of the video surveillance
`
`system, or it may be a. separate recording device 15. Examples of a response may include,
`
`bui are not necessarily limited to, the following: activating a visual and/or audio alert on
`
`a system display; activating a visual and/or audio alarm system at the location;
`
`activating a silent alarm; activating a rapid response mechanism; locking a door;
`
`contacting a security service; forwarding or streaming data (e.g., image data, video data,
`
`videoprimitives; and/or analyzed data) to another computer system via a network, such
`
`as, but not limited to, the Internet; saving such data to a designated computer-readable
`
`medium; activating some other sensor or surveillance system; tasking the computer
`
`system 11 and/or another computer system; and/or directing the computer system 11
`
`and/or another computer system.
`
`(column 16, lines 3-28 of Venetianer)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`Black discloses what can only be classified as a database query system, in which the system acts
`
`only to find items at the time a query is input and does not automatically detect the events and
`
`apply defined responses upon their detection. This type of simple manual query entry without a
`
`defined response condition does not properly read on the limitations of the invention as claimed.
`
`Additionally, Black does not teach "in response to a determination of the first event, at
`
`- least one of an alert to a user, information for a report, and an instruction for taking an action" of
`
`claims 1 or the similar limitations found in claim 1, 6, 9, 12, and 18. For the reasons above, the
`
`Request does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail
`
`with regard to claims 1-3 and 6-22, since it is deemed that Black does not teach the missing
`
`limitations as noted with regards to claims 1, 6, 9, 12, and 18.
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of Black does not establish that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to claims 1-3 and 6-22.
`
`Issue 8- Black (obviousness)
`
`12)
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 4 and 5, as set forth on pages 228-231 of the Appendix:
`
`'912 Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of the Venetianer patent.
`
`As discussed in Issue 8, Black does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`the requester will prevail with respect to claim 1, thus by dependency alone Black could not
`
`establish that there is a reasonable likelihood to that the requestor will prevail with respect to
`
`claims 4 and 5. On top of that, Black does not teach "wherein the second processor analyzes the
`
`attributes to detect the first event in real time" of claim 4. There is no mention in the cited
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`portions of the reference of detecting the event in real time. The Request appears imply that
`
`such a limitation would be obvious in view of the teachings of Black, unfortunately the Request
`
`fails to provide any evidence or for that matter any explanation at all in support of this
`
`implication. Additionally, Black does not teach "a third processor, separate from the first
`
`processor and second processor, in communication with the first processor over a second
`
`communications link, the third processor configured to determine a second event that is not one
`
`of the determined attributes by analyzing a combination of the attributes transferred by the
`
`second communications link". Once again, the Request appears to rely on the idea that such a
`
`limitation would be obvious in view of the teachings of Black, unfortunately the Request fails to
`
`provide any evidence or for that matter any explanation in support of this implication. For the
`
`reasons above, the Request does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`requester will prevail with regard to claims 4 and 5, since it is deemed that Black does not teach
`
`the missing limitations as noted with regards to claims 1, 4, and 5.
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of Black does not establish that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to claims 4 and 5.
`
`Issue 9 - Brodsky (anticipation}
`
`13)
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22, as set forth on
`
`pages 232-254 of the Appendix: '912 Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show
`
`a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of
`
`the V enetianer patent.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`Brodsky does not teach the limitations of the independent claims regarding analyzing a
`
`stream of attributes in order to detect an event. More specifically, Brodsky does not teach:
`
`a second processor, separate from the first processor, in communication with the first
`
`communications link to receive the determined attributes transferred.from the first
`
`processor over the first communications link, which determines a first event that is not
`
`one of the determined attributes by analyzing a combination of the received determined
`
`attributes ( cl~im 1)
`
`a processor configured to receive from the input a stream of detected attributes received
`
`over the communications channel, the attributes being attributes of one or more objects
`
`detected in a video, the processor configured to determine an event that is not one of the
`
`detected attributes by analyzing a combination of the received attributes ( claim 6)
`
`receiving a stream of detected attributes over a communications channel, the detected
`
`attributes representing attributes of an object previously detected in the video at a remote
`
`location; performing an analysis of a combination of the detected attributes to detect an
`
`event that is not one of the detected attributes without reprocessing the video ( claim 9)
`
`transmitting the stream of attributes to a second location removed from the first location
`
`for subsequent analysis, wherein the stream of attributes are transmitted to the second
`
`location over a communications channel, and wherein the stream of attributes is
`
`sufficient to allow the subsequent analysis to detect an event of the video ( claim 12)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`an output configured to transmit the attributes determined by the processor over a
`
`communications link, wherein the output is configured to transmit the attributes to a
`
`second location removed from the processor for a subsequent analysis of a combination
`
`of the attributes at the second location, wherein the processor determines attributes
`
`independently of a subsequent analysis of a combination of attributes to determine an
`
`event that is not one of the determined attributes ( claim 18)
`
`The discussion in the Venetianer patent regarding the analysis that is performed in order to detect
`
`an event from a stream of attributes requires that the analysis be automatically performed by
`
`event discriminators. Event discriminators are created by translating user defined rules and
`
`responses via a rule and response definition interface.
`
`Referring now to FIG. 16b, once the video, and, if there are other sensors, the non-video
`
`primitives 161 are available, the system may detect events. The user tasks the system by
`
`defining rules 163 and corresponding responses 164 using the rule and response
`
`definition interface 162. The rules are translated into event discriminators, and the
`
`system extracts corresponding event occurrences 165. The detected event occurrences
`
`166 trigger user defined responses 167. A response may include a snapshot of a video of
`
`the detected event from video storage 168 (which may or may not be the same as video
`
`storage 1604 in FIG. 16a). The video storage 168 may be part of the video surveillance
`
`system, or it may be a separate recording device 15. Examples of a response may include,
`
`but are not necessarily limited to, the following: activating a visual and/or audio alert on
`
`a system display; activating a visual and/or audio alarm system at the location;
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`activating a silent alarm; activating a rapid response mechanism; locking a door;
`
`contacting a security service,· forwarding or streaming data (e.g., image data, video data,
`
`video primitives; and/or analyzed data) to another computer system via a network, such
`
`as, but not limited to, the Internet; saving such data to a designated computer-readable
`
`medium; activating some other sensor or surveillance system; tasking the computer
`
`system 11 and/or another computer system; and/or directing the computer system 11
`
`and/or another computer system.
`
`(column 16, lines 3-28 ofVenetianer)
`
`Brodsky discloses what can only be classified as a database query system, in which the system
`
`acts only to find items at the time a query is input and does not automatically detect the events
`
`and apply defined responses upon their detection. This type of simple manual query entry
`
`without a defined response condition does not properly read on the limitations of the invention as
`
`claimed. For the reasons above, the Request does not establish that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the requester will prevail with regard to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and
`
`22, since it is deemed that Brodsky does not teach the missing limitations as noted with regards
`
`to claims 1, 6, 9, 12, and 18.
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of Brodsky does not establish that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13,
`
`15-20, and' 22.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue JO- Brodsky (obviousness)
`
`Page 16
`
`14)
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 5, as set forth on pages 255-256 of the Appendix: '912
`
`Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of the Venetianer patent.
`
`As discussed in Issue 9, Brodsky does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the requester will prevail with respect to claim I, thus by dependency alone Brodsky could
`
`not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood to that the requestor will prevail with respect to
`
`claim 5. On top of that, Brodsky does not teach "a third processor, separate from the first
`
`processor and second processor; in communication with the first processor over a second
`
`communications link, the third processor configured to determine a second event that is not one
`
`of the determined attributes by analyzing a combination of the attributes transferred by the
`
`second communications link". Once again, the Request appears to rely on the idea that such a
`
`limitation would be obvious in view of the teachings of Brodsky, unfortunately the Request fails
`
`to provide any evidence or for that matter any explanation in support of this implication. For the
`
`reasons above, the Request does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`requester will prevail with regard to claim 5, since it is deemed that Brodsky does not teach the
`
`missing limitations as noted with regards to claims 1 and 5.
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of Brodsky does not establish that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to claim 5.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue 11 - Brodsky and Liu
`
`Page 17
`
`15)
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 2, 7, 10, 14, and 21, as set forth on pages 257-266 of the
`
`Appendix: '912 Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims of the
`
`V enetianer patent.
`
`As discussed in Issue 9, Brodsky does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the requester will prevail with respect to claims 1, 6., 9, 12, and 18. Liu does not cure the
`
`deficiencies of Brodsky in regards to claims 1, 6, 9, 12, and 18 and the Request does not attempt
`
`to show that Liu teaches the limitations of those claims. Thus, the combination of Brodsky and
`
`Liu does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with
`
`respect to claims 1, 6, 9, 12, and 18 and by dependency alone the combination of Brodsky and
`
`Liu could not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood to that the requester will prevail with
`
`respect to claims 2, 7, 10, 14, and 21. Additionally, the Request appears to imply that the
`
`limitations of claims 2, 7, 10, 14, and 21 would be obvious in view of the teachings of Brodsky
`
`and Liu, unfortunately the Request fails to provide any evidence or for that matter any
`
`explanation of how the teachings of the two references wquld or could be combined. Instead, the
`
`Request appears to avoid addressing the issue of what specific teachings are being combined,
`
`how the teachings are combined, or why such a combination would be proper with respect to the
`
`combination of Brodsky and Liu. For the reasons above, the Request does not establish that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with regard to claims 2, 7, 10, 14,
`
`and 21, since it is deemed that the combination of Brodsky and Liu does not tea~h the missing
`
`limitations as noted with regards to claims 1, 6, 9, 12, and 18.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,912
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`Therefore, it is found that the consideration of the combination of Brodsky and Liu does
`
`not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to
`
`claims 2, 7, .10, 14, and 21.
`
`Issue 12 - Olson (anticipation)
`
`16)
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22, as set forth on
`
`pages 267-299 of the Appendix: '912 Patent Claim Charts is relied upon in the Request to show
`
`a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at