Ex Parte Barile et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2017

13770584 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 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.
13/770,584 02/19/2013 Ian Barile TNGO-022 7402
101698 7590 05/24/2017
TANGO C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVTT.T.E, CA 95076
EXAMINER
DANG, HUNG Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2017 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):
patents @ wagnerblecher.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN BARILE, GREGORY DORSO, GARY CHEVSKY,
YUXIN LIU, XU LIU, ERIC SETTON, and JAMIE ODELL
Appeal 2016-005473
Application 13/770,5 841
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, SHARON FENICK, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 4—10, 13—21, 23, and 24. (Appeal Br. 6.) Claims 2, 3,
11, 12, and 22 are cancelled. {Id. at 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the detection of a portion of video or
audio (a “moment”) from a video stream, where the detection is based on
1 Appellants identify TangoMe, Inc. as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br.
1.)
Appeal 2016-005473
Application 13/770,584
certain heuristics, including audio changes. (Spec. Abstract, || 8—9.) The
moment is then integrated into a social media feed. {Id. Abstract,
111-)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with italicization added for emphasis, is
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions that,
when executed by a computer, cause said computer to perform
a method for integrating selected video frames into a social
feed, wherein said method comprises:
accessing a video stream at a device;
detecting a set of features within at least one frame of
said video stream to achieve a detected set of features, wherein
said detected set of features comprises at least a change in an
amplitude of a sound wave, wherein said change meets an
amplitude threshold;
determining at least one moment comprising a
combination of said detected set of features to achieve a
determined at least one moment;
storing said determined at least one moment;
accessing an integration instruction associated with said
determined at least one moment; and
integrating a selected moment of said determined at least
one moment into a social feed based on said integration
instruction.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4—10, 13—21, 23, and 24 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Steiner (US 2012/0213490 Al;
pub. Aug. 13, 2012) and Kritt et al. (US 2014/0181668 Al; pub. June 26,
2014) (“Kritt”). (Final Action 2-7.)
2
Appeal 2016-005473
Application 13/770,584
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kritt, in combination with
Steiner, teaches or suggests “detecting a set of features within at least one
frame of said video stream to achieve a detected set of features, wherein said
detected set of features comprises at least a change in an amplitude of a
sound wave, wherein said change meets an amplitude threshold” as recited
in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the claimed detection of a feature of video stream
comprising at least a change in an amplitude of a sound wave to be taught or
suggested in Kritt’s teaching of detecting, in a video stream, silence periods
versus periods of speech or music or other sounds. (Final Action 4 (citing
Kritt H 57—58).) The Examiner finds Kritt teaches classifying segments of
video in which sound is not detectable as silent, and therefore Kritt teaches
the claimed amplitude threshold in its teaching of a minimum value which
can be detected. {Id. at 2.)
Appellants argue that “Kritt’s features focus on identifying a set sound
by comparing that sound to a library of sounds.” (Appeal Br. 10.)
Therefore, Appellants conclude that Kritt does not teach or suggest the
disputed claim limitation. {Id. at 9-10.)
We agree with the Examiner that Kritt teaches extracting audio
features from an audio file and classifying segments of the video as silent or
other types of sound. (Answer 9.) Furthermore, we agree Kritt teaches that
segments for which sounds are not detectable are classified as silent. {Id.;
Final Action 2.) Thus, we disagree with Appellants’ characterization of the
teachings of the cited portions of Kritt as directed only to identification
3
Appeal 2016-005473
Application 13/770,584
based on comparison to a library of sounds, and are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument of error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions.
We also note, common sense or common knowledge can be invoked to
provide a suggestion or motivation to combine or modify a prior art
reference. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H.
Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[W]e have held that
there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references
even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such
situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses
knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art
references.”). In an obviousness analysis, precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be identified
because the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ can be taken into account. (See KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).). Here, we find employing an
amplitude threshold (which threshold level(s) is not defined) is merely a use
of a known technique to improve a method in the same way Kritt uses
frequency as a detected feature (signal characteristics include frequency or
amplitude, thus, there would be no undue experimentation in using
amplitude as a detected feature).2
2 Appellants’ claim further recites “determining at least one moment
comprising a combination of said detected set offeatures to achieve a
determined at least one moment.” However, the only detected feature
mentioned in the claim is a change in amplitude. Upon any further
prosecution the Examiner may wish to consider a rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite.
4
Appeal 2016-005473
Application 13/770,584
We further note that only those arguments timely made in the briefs of
record in this appeal have been considered. Other arguments not made or
those not properly presented to the Board have not been considered. See 37
C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants include additional arguments in the Reply Brief. (Reply
Br. 3—4.) While Appellants introduce these additional arguments as a
response to statements in the Examiner’s Answer (Reply Br. 2 (citing
Answer 10)), we find no reason such arguments could not have been made
in response to similar statements in the Final Action (Final Actions at 2, 4).
Absent a showing of good cause, we do not consider any arguments made in
the Reply Brief not raised in the appeal brief or responsive to the Examiner’s
Answer. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834,
1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
Therefore, in light of the broad terms recited in the claims and the
arguments presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their
claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Thus, we
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1, and the rejection of claims 4—
10, 13—21, 23, and 24, not argued separately (Appeal Br. 10-11).
DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 4—10, 13—
21, 23, and 24 is affirmed.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
5