Ex Parte Agnihotri et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2008

09747107 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LALITHA AGNIHOTRI and NEVENKA DIMITROVA
____________

Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: January 31, 2008
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JOHN A.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-38, which are all of the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

Appellants’ claimed invention relates to providing multimedia
summary of a video program using transcript information and video
segments. A multimedia summary generator obtains and combines
transcript portions of the video segments corresponding to the video
program to create the summary. (Specification 4-5).
Claims 1 and 3 are illustrative of the invention and read as follows:
1. For use in a video display system capable of displaying a video
program, a system for creating a multimedia summary of said video
program, said system comprising:

a multimedia summary generator capable of identifying a domain of
said video program and obtaining a transcript of the text of said video
program and capable of obtaining audio-video segments of said video
program,

wherein said multimedia summary generator is capable of combining
portions of said transcript and portions of said audio-video segments
selected according to said domain of said video program to create a
multimedia summary of said video program.

3. The system as claimed in Claim 2 wherein said multimedia
summary generator comprises:

a controller capable of executing computer software instructions
contained within a memory coupled to said controller to create said
multimedia summary of said video program by

determining a set of topic cues associated with said domain of
said video program,

identifying at least one topic cue from said set of topic cues in
said transcript of said video program,

selecting at least one audio-visual segment from said video
program associated with said at least one topic cue, and

2
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

adding said topic cue and said audio-visual segment to said
multimedia summary.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Hoarty US 5,093,718 Mar. 3, 1992
Ahmad US 6,263,507 B1 Jul. 17, 2001
(filed Dec. 5, 1996)
Liou US 6,580,437 B1 Jun. 17, 2003
(filed Jun. 26, 2000)

Satoh, Name It: Naming and Detecting Faces in News Videos, IEEE article
1070-986X/99, 22-35 (1999).

Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21, 25-27, 29-31, and 34 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ahmad.
Claims 4-6, 10-12, 16-18, 22-24, 28, 32, 33, and 35 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ahmad and Liou.
Claims 36-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ahmad, Saitoh, and Hoarty.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in
the Brief have not been considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We affirm.

3
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

ISSUES
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), does Ahmad have a disclosure which
anticipates the invention set forth in claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21, 25-27,
29-31, and 34?
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), does the combination of Ahmad with Liou
or with Saitoh and Hoarty have a disclosure which anticipates the invention
set forth in claims 4-6, 10-12, 16-18, 22-24, 28, 32, 33, and 35-38?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of facts (FF) are relevant to the issues at hand:
1. Ahmad provides for displaying by electronic devices (e.g., a
television, a computer display monitor) a body of information which is
reviewed quickly and in a flexible manner. Typically, the body of
information will be represented by a set of audio data, video data, text data
or some combination of the three by generating an audiovisual display of
one or more segments of information, as well as a display (a text display, an
audio display, a video display, or an audiovisual display), for each of the
segments, of one or more related segments of information. (Col. 2, l. 60
through col. 3, l. 3).
2. Ahmad discloses that each of a set of television news programs can
be skimmed to quickly ascertain the subject matter content of the news
stories contained therein. Additionally, a particular category (e.g., subject
matter category) can be specified and news stories having content that fits
within the specified subject matter category can be immediately identified
and either displayed or identified as pertinent to the subject matter category
and available for display. (Col. 3, ll. 22-31).
4
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

3. As depicted in Figures 2A and 2B, Ahmad discloses using the
primary information playback control region 201 of the GUI 200 to control
the manner in which the primary information is displayed on the primary
display device 102. (Col. 15, ll. 8-11).
4. Ahmad further shows in Figure 2B topic “buttons” 215, control
“buttons” 216 and a speed control 217 included in the primary information
playback control region 211 of the GUI 210. The topic buttons 215 enable
the user to select a subject matter category to be displayed one after the other
by the primary display device 102 or cause a list of news stories pertaining
to that subject matter category to appear from which list the user could select
one or more news stories for viewing. (Col. 15, ll. 18-42).
5. Ahmad further discloses partitioning of text data using markers
that identify the breaks between segments of the information. For example,
closed caption text data that can accompany the audio and video data of a set
of audiovisual data often includes characters that indicate breaks in the text
data (e.g., markers that designate story and paragraph boundaries, the
beginning and end of advertisements, and changes in speaker) and, in
particular, characters that explicitly designate breaks between segments
(e.g., markers that identify story boundaries). (Col. 23, ll. 29-49).
6. Liou relates to a system for organizing digital videos to archive and
accessing them using closed caption text data (Abstract).
7. Liou used the closed caption data to construct an organized tree
using the markers which are indicative of segments defined by changes in
the subject or starting a new story. (Col. 6, ll. 35-52).
8. Liou further teaches that the organized tree includes nodes
corresponding to the stories and attached to the root nodes. This
5
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

arrangement allows for moving the nodes and playing the corresponding
video. (Col. 7, ll. 33-41).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Obviousness
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Section 103 forbids
issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the subject matter sought
to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007).

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Rejection of Claims
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21, 25-27,
29-31, and 34 as anticipated by the Ahmad reference, Appellants provide
arguments for every claim to rebut the Examiner’s position. However,
6
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

similar arguments are presented for independent claims 1, 7, 13, 19, 25, and
34 while identical points in support of patentability of claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14,
15, 20, 21, 26, 27, and 29-31 are also presented. We therefore, select claims
1-3 as the representative claims to address in our analysis.
Claim 1
The Examiner reads the various claimed limitations on the disclosure
of Ahmad, specifically the embodiment shown in Figure 2B of the reference
(Ans. 3-4). Appellants’ arguments in response assert that Ahmad only
shows a Graphical User Interface (GUI) related to a news browser which
allows a user to choose between different topics in a news browser (Br. 8).
Appellants further argue that, even if a domain is identified by selecting
topic icons in Ahmad, it is done by the user, not by the multimedia summary
generator as required by independent claim 1.
After reviewing the disclosure of Ahmad in light of the arguments of
record, however, we are in general agreement with the Examiner’s position
as stated in the Answer. Our interpretation of the disclosure of Ahmad
coincides with that of the Examiner, i.e., when the user in Ahmad selects one
of the topic icons or subject matter categories, the system provides the user
with summaries of the news programs that satisfy the requested information
related to the selected icon (Ans. Paragraph linking pages 11 and 12).
In particular, we observe that the Examiner has reasonably equated
the “subject matter categories” selected by topic buttons 215 of Ahmad (FF
4) to the claimed “domain” based on Appellants’ definition of “domain” as
“category” (Specification 19:15-20). Ahmad in fact combines portions from
a body of audio-visual information based on the subject matter category
selected by the user (FF 1-3) to be presented to the user for quick review.
7
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

We also find to be without merit Appellants’ contention (Br. 9) that it
is the user who identifies a domain. In fact, the user in Ahmad merely
suggests the category by selecting one of the topic buttons, while it is the
system that identifies the category of the video program based on the
selected category for obtaining and combining the portions of the transcript
and audio-video segment to create a multimedia summary (FF 1).
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Ahmad, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 13, 19, 251, and 34, as well as claims
26, 27, and 29-31 which are argued as falling with claim 25 (Br. 23-25), is
sustained.2

1 Claim 25 which reads as follows:
25. For use in a video display system capable of
displaying a video program, a multimedia summary of a video
program comprising at least one audio-visual segment of said
video program that relates to an identified domain of said video
program.
is directed merely to a multimedia summary of video program which defines
non-functional descriptive material. Not only does the content of this
summary not fall within any of the categories of statutory subject matter, it
also can encompass every video program summary. However, in view of
our decision affirming the rejection of claims 25-33, we decline to enter a
new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2 We also observe that the repeated use of the word “capable” in the
preamble and the body of these claims makes them subject to rejections
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We recognize that there is
nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in
functional terms (i.e., in terms of what it does rather than what it is). See
MPEP § 2173.05(g). But here, there is no positively recited step required to
be performed by the “system” of these claims since they recite functions that
the system merely is capable of performing, but does not necessarily
perform. The noted recitations are not definite and the scope of the claims is
8
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

Claims 2 and 3
Appellants point out that claim 2 further requires selection of the
segments related to a topic of the program wherein the topic is selected
according to the domain of the video program (Br. 9). Regarding claim 3,
Appellants assert that the claim requires determining a set of topic cues
associated with the domain of the video program, selecting an audio-visual
segment associated with one of the topic cues and adding the topic cue and
the audio-video segment to the multimedia summary (id.). Appellants
further argue that the markers in Ahmad merely provide boundaries for
sections of the text while the claimed “topic cues” provide information on
the content of the audio-video segments (Br. 10). Appellants present the
same arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, and
21 (Br. 13-23).
The Examiner reads the claimed topic on various news stories
associated with each topic button 215 which are selected according to the
button or the domain of said video program (Ans. 4). With respect to claim
3, the Examiner takes the position that the markers disclosed by Ahmad are
the same as the recited topic cues which are defined in page 20 of the
Specification as indicative of transition points in a video program (Ans. 12).
Upon a review of the teachings of Ahmad, we agree with the
Examiner that selection of one or more news stories from a list of news
stories presented to the user upon selection of a topic button 215 in Ahmad
(FF 5) is reasonably the same as the recited features in claim 2. Regarding
not reasonably determinable. Even though these issues have not been raised
in this appeal, the applied prior art is thus more clearly applicable to claims
1, 7, 13, 19, 25, and 34 than is apparent.

9
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

claim 3, we agree with the Examiner to the extent that the markers in Ahmad
do represent some kind of topic cues such as designating the beginning and
the end of advertisement, change in speaker, and breaks between segments,
which all provide information on the content of an audio-video segment.
We also find that Ahmad provides the markers merely in the context of close
caption text data that can accompany the audio and video data (FF 5), but
does not apply the markers in selection of the audio-visual segments that are
added to the multimedia summary.
However, upon a further review of Ahmad, we observe that following
the disclosure related to the markers in the closed caption text data, Ahmad
provides for partitioning the audio and the video data (col. 23, ll. 50-67)
using voice recognition (col. 24, ll. 10-29), known words (col. 24, ll. 30-41),
music recognition (col. 24, ll. 42-57, and pause recognition (col. 24, ll. 58-
65). Ahmad also provides for video data partitioning such as scene break
recognition (col. 24, l. 66 through col. 25, l. 54). More importantly, Ahmad
includes markers, similar to those associated with the closed caption text
data, in either audio or video data which directly identifies segments or
breaks within the audio and video data (col. 25, ll. 55-60).
Based on the teachings of Ahmad discussed above and the arguments
of record made by Appellants and the Examiner, we find that the claimed
“topic” and “topic cues” read on the stories associated with each button and
the markers used for identifying the changes in the content and partitioning
the audio and video data. Therefore, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 2 and 3, as well as claims 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, and 21 which
are of the same scope, is sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims
10
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

Regarding the rejection of claims 4-6, 10-12, 16-18, 22-24, 28, 32, 33,
and 35 over Ahmad and Liou, we observe that Appellants repeat the same
arguments for each set of claims 10-12, 16-18, and 22-24 (Br. 28-31).
Appellants further assert patentability of claims 28, 32, 33, and 35 for the
reasons already argued with respect to their base claims 25 and 34. In
particular, Appellants address the rejection of claims 4-6 by designating
claim 4 as representative and repeating the same points raised for their base
claim 1 and further stating that Liou is a domain-independent video
organization method that does not identify a domain of a video program (Br.
26).
A review of Liou reveals that an organizational tree is constructed
from the processed closed caption data to produce a video table of content in
a hierarchical order (FF 6-8). As depicted in Figures 6 and 7 of Liou, the
tree includes nodes corresponding to the stories that are attached to the root
node (FF 8). We find the Examiner’s characterization of the organization
tree in Liou as the claimed topic and subtopic organization wherein the
partitioning of audio and video data at each level is taught be Ahmad, as
discussed above with respect to claim 3. We also disagree with Appellants
that the fact that identifying a domain is not mentioned in Liou precludes its
combination with Ahmad. In that regard, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found that the root level disclosed in Liou may be expanded to
correspond to each category taught in Ahmad wherein the organized tree of
Liou allows archiving video data within that category or domain which can
be searched at each node level.
In view of the teachings of Ahmad and Liou discussed above and the
arguments made by Appellants and the Examiner, we find no error in the
11
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

Examiner’s position with respect to the rejection of claims 4-6. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4-6, 10-12, 16-
18, 22-24, 28, 32, 33, and 35 over Ahmad and Liou.
With respect to the rejection of claims 36-38, Appellants do not argue
the rejection with any specificity and merely provide the same arguments
against Ahmad that were presented for their base claim 13 (Br. 33-36). In
view of our discussion of Ahmad in rejection of claims 1 and 13 above, we
also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 36-38
over Ahmad, Satoh, and Hoarty.

CONCLUSION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s rejections of all the
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims
1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21, 25-27, 29-31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and
claims 4-6, 10-12, 16-18, 22-24, 28, 32, 33, and 35-38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

12
Appeal 2007-2465
Application 09/747,107

tdl/gvw

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P O Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510
13