Ex Parte Deb et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 15, 2016

12245698 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/245,698 10/03/2008 Sidhartha Deb
45833 7590 07119/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/APPLE
POBOX2938
SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
772.169US1 4605
EXAMINER
TRYDER, GREGORY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIDHARTHA DEB, GREGORY B. ABBAS, GREGORY NILES,
STEPHEN SHEELER, and GUIDO HUCKING
Appeal2014-008943
Application 12/245,698
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-15 and 27-37. 1' 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions,
1 We note there is a typographical error in the first page of the Final Action.
Claims 16-26 have been canceled, not withdrawn. See Amend. 4, 7 (Apr.
27, 2012).
2 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection. Ans. 31.
Appeal2014-008943
Application 12/245,698
and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner
errs in finding the combination of Clatworthy (US 2007101463 60 A 1; June
28, 2007) and Tam (US 2010/0080448 Al; Apr. 1, 2010) teaches or suggests
providing a set of user interface tools for adjusting a region of focus for
rendering the space from a particular location within a particular field of
view ... to adjust whether the media objects are rendered in focus
("adjusting region of focus" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1
and commensurately set forth in independent claims 14, 31, and 34.
The Examiner relies on Clatworthy to teach the "adjusting region of
focus" limitation. Ans. 5-6 (citing Clatworthy i1i147, 48, 87, 121). In
particular, the Examiner finds the segment of interest and cinematic frame
arrangement tools taught by Clatworthy "represent the user interface tools
for adjusting a region of focus." Ans. 32.
Clatworthy describes a cinematic frame creation system 145 that
includes a user interface 305. Clatworthy i147. As pointed out by
Appellants (App. Br. 13), the system enables automatic translation of natural
language, narrative text (e.g., script) into a series of sequential storyboard
frames. Clatworthy i139; see also Fig. 7 (illustrating an example script text
file). Clatworthy further describes a segment analysis module that selects a
segment of interest (segment of narrative text) for analysis, searches the
selected segment for elements, and arranges the objects in the text to create
the appropriate cinematic compositions. Id. i1 87. The user interface 305
enables the user to edit the created frames. Id.
During examination of a patent application, claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
2
Appeal2014-008943
Application 12/245,698
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although Appellants'
Specification does not include an explicit definition of "region of focus", we
agree with Appellants that the Specification consistently refers to "region of
focus" as a photography/videography term that refers to an area in a scene
where objects appear to be sharp or in focus. See Reply. Br. 3; see also
Spec. i-f 31 ("objects located in the region of focus are rendered in focus by
the virtual camera"). In light of the consistent use of "region of focus" in the
Specification, we agree with Appellants' argument (App. Br. 14) that
Clatworthy' s user interface that enables users to select segments of narrative
text for cinematic frame creation does not teach "a region of focus"
adjustable to determine whether media objects within the region are
rendered in focus. Therefore, Appellants persuade us the Examiner has not
established that the Clatworthy teaches the "adjusting region of focus"
limitation. Nor does the Examiner find that Tam teaches this limitation.
We, therefore, do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims
1, 14, 31, and 34, and their dependent claims 2-13, 15, 27-30, 32, 33, and
35-37.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-15 and 27-37.
REVERSED
3