Ex Parte Bentley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

12256578 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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.
12/256,578 10/23/2008 Frank R. Bentley 24207-26946 5493
124135 7590 12/19/2016
M ntnrnl a /(Ton al e/FF,N WTPK
EXAMINER
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
LEVY, AMY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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):
ptoc @ fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK R. BENTLEY, ROHIT S. BODAS,
and MICHAEL E. GROBLE1
Appeal 2016-000938
Application 12/256,578
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 9-16 and 19, all pending claims of the application.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Google Technology
Holdings LLC. See Appeal Brief 1.
2 Claims 1—8, 17, and 18 are cancelled.
Appeal 2016-000938
Application 12/256,578
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the application relates to creating video clips
of important events using multiple video feeds. Spec. 11.3 Creation of the
video clips is simplified by providing an array of video thumbnail images
and allowing the user to provide a command to create video clips of a
particular length of time from the multiple video sources. Spec. 13. The
command may include a single selection of one of a plurality of soft buttons,
each for capturing a video of a different predetermined length of time. Spec.
1 5. Claims 10 and 16 are independent. Claim 10 is illustrative and is
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
10. A method comprising:
receiving live video streams from multiple video sources;
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) providing a
thumbnail representation of each of the video sources;
receiving a command to create video clips of a particular
length of time from the multiple video sources, the command
comprising a single selection of one of a plurality of soft buttons,
wherein the plurality of soft buttons comprises a plurality of
different predetermined time periods',
simultaneously capturing segments from each of the
multiple video streams for the particular length of time;
displaying in the GUI associated with each video source
multiple thumbnails of each of the captured segments as an array,
wherein the array has an x-axis representing time, and a y-axis
representing video source, or vice versa;
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed
Oct. 23, 2008 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed Apr. 1,
2014; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Apr. 9, 2015; (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed Aug. 21, 2015; and (5) the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed Oct. 21, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-000938
Application 12/256,578
receiving selection information from an input device
indicating the starting point image and the ending point image of
the array of displayed multiple images for the captured segment
associated with each video source; and
creating video clips from the captured segments in the
array, based on the selected starting and ending points applied to
each captured segment associated with each video source.
REFERENCES
The art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Carlson US 2003/0009773 A1 Jan. 9,2003
Baxter US 2005/0033758 A1 Feb. 10,2005
Davey et al. (“Davey”) US 7,823,056 B1 Oct. 26, 2010
Jan Ozer, Visual Quickstart Guide Pinnacle Studio 11 for Windows,
Peachpit Press (2008) (hereinafter “Ozer”).
REJECTION
Claims 9—16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davey, Carlson, and Baxter or alternatively over Davey,
Ozer, and Baxter. Final Act. 6—13.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and
issues raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue presented on
appeal is whether the Examiner errs in finding that the cited combination of
references teaches or suggests “receiving a command to create video clips of
a particular length of time from the multiple video sources, the command
3
Appeal 2016-000938
Application 12/256,578
comprising a single selection of one of a plurality of soft buttons, wherein
the plurality of soft buttons comprises a plurality of different predetermined
time periods,” as recited in claim 10.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds GUI 610 of Baxter’s video editing software
includes a plurality of soft buttons each representing a plurality of different
predefined times. Ans. 10. More specifically, the Examiner finds GUI
610’s “pyramid of frame rates ranging from 1 hr. at the top to a 10th of a
second frame rate at the bottom” suggests the claimed plurality of soft
buttons. Ans. 10 (citing Baxter || 66—67, 77—78 and Fig. 8).
Appellants argue that “Baxter only discloses the search rate pyramid
indicator being used to show the interval the user selected” but does not
disclose a plurality of soft buttons because Baxter “does not disclose the
levels of the pyramid being used to select a time interval.” (emphasis
added) Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants the Examiner has not demonstrated that
these findings are supported by the teachings or suggestions of Baxter. The
Examiner has not established that the keyframe event rates displayed on the
search rate pyramid indicator are soft buttons. And while we agree with the
Examiner that Carlson suggests capturing a clip of a particular length of time
from a live stream using a single soft button command (Final Act. 7—8;
citing Carlson || 6 and 41—42), the Examiner does not provide sufficient
articulated reasoning to explain why one skilled in the art at the time of the
invention would have found it obvious to add a plurality of soft button’s to
4
Appeal 2016-000938
Application 12/256,578
Carlson’s single soft button in view of Baxter or any of the other cited
references.
Accordingly, we concur with Appellants that the Examiner has failed
to establish the combination of Davey, Carlson or Ozer, and Baxter teaches,
suggests, or renders obvious “receiving a command to create video clips of a
particular length of time from the multiple video sources, the command
comprising a single selection of one of a plurality of soft buttons, wherein
the plurality of soft buttons comprises a plurality of different predetermined
time periods,” as recited in claim 10. We therefore reverse the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellants for claim 10, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants’ other contentions.
We also reverse the rejection of independent claim 16, which recites
commensurate limitations, and of dependent claims 9, 11—15, and 19, which
stand with their respective independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9—16 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5