UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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 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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
