Ex Parte Avison-Fell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2017

12977948 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2017)

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.
12/977,948 12/23/2010 Craig Avison-Fell 066.0306 (P2010-07-11) 1304
70560 7590 03/03/2017
T KCrlnhal CRphnStari
EXAMINER
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
HANCE, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2017 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):
IPDEPT @ echostar.com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG AVISON-FELL
Appeal 2016-007842
Application 12/977,948
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2016-007842
Application 12/977,948
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
dynamically recognizing an image within a video component of a
multimedia presentation of a distribution system based on a stored
representation or description of the image. See generally Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for detecting an image in one or more frames of a
video multimedia presentation, the method comprising:
receiving a broadcast multimedia presentation originating
from a broadcast server and broadcast via a network, the
broadcast multimedia presentation comprising an audio
component and a video component;
selecting a first frame from the video component of the
multimedia presentation;
analyzing the first frame for one or more features of an
object, wherein the object is generic to a plurality of different
video multimedia presentations;
comparing the one or more features to one or more
images stored in a database if the one or more features are
present in the first frame;
providing the first frame to a display device for display;
and
creating a link to access information associated with the
object.
Cuttner
Li
References and Rejections
US 2004/0221308 A1 Nov. 4, 2004
US 2009/0113475 A1 Apr. 30, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-007842
Application 12/977,948
Goncalves US 2011/0286628 A1 Nov. 24, 2011
Dimitrova WO 01/72040 A2 Sept. 27,2001
Claims 1—6, 8, 10, and 17—19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dimitrova and Goncalves
Claims 7, 11—16, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dimitrova, Goncalves, and Li.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dimitrova, Goncalves, and Cuttner.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
Appellant contends Dimitrova does not teach “analyzing the first
frame for one or more features of an object, wherein the object is generic to
a plurality of different video multimedia presentations” as recited in claim 1
(emphasis added). See App. Br. 8—9. In particular, Appellant contends the
Examiner erred in citing U.S. Patent Application 09/370,931 (“’931
Application”), which is incorporated by reference into Dimitrova (Dimitrova
3:1—4), for teaching “generic to a plurality of’ objects. See App. Br. 8—9.
Appellant argues “Dimitrova discloses the recognition of specific items such
as logos and text, not those that are generic to a plurality of objects. . . .
3
Appeal 2016-007842
Application 12/977,948
Dimitrova makes no mention of the recognition of generic objects.” App.
Br. 8.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Appellant’s assertion about
the ’931 Application is not directed to the Examiner’s specific mapping, as
the Examiner cites Dimitrova itself—not the ’931 Application—for teaching
the “generic” feature. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 2—3. Further, Appellant’s
assertion that “Dimitrova discloses the recognition of specific items such as
logos and text, not those that are generic to a plurality of objects” (App. Br.
8) is unpersuasive, as Appellant does not explain why Dimitrova’s text is not
generic to a plurality of objects.
In addition, in response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner
provides further findings showing Dimitrova teaches the disputed claim
limitation. See Ans. 2—3. The Examiner finds Dimitrova’s text is a generic
object appearing in different video multimedia presentations. See Ans. 2
(citing Dimitrova 4:5—7; 10:34—35; Fig. 4). Therefore, the Examiner finds
Dimitrova teaches the text “is generic to a plurality of different video
multimedia presentations,” as required by the claim (emphasis added). See
Ans. 2. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s explanation. Therefore,
Appellant fails to show error in the Examiner’s findings. See In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of
this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued
by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent
claims 11 and 17 for similar reasons.
4
Appeal 2016-007842
Application 12/977,948
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2—10, 12—16, and 18—20, as Appellant does not advance separate
substantive arguments for those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5