Ex Parte Delorme et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2013

11247875 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEXANDRE DELORME and JOHN M. MAIN
____________

Appeal 2010-008223
Application 11/247,875
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008223
Application 11/247,875

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15 and 23-291. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The Appellants’ invention is related to methods for processing a video
stream. One embodiment comprises generating a comparison signature for a
frame of a video stream and comparing the comparison signature to a
reference signature. Another embodiment comprises generating a reference
signature for a frame of a video stream and assigning an action to the frame
containing the reference signature. Abs.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitation in
italics):
1. A method, comprising:
generating, by a processor, a comparison signature for
each of a plurality of frames of a video stream;
comparing, by the processor, each comparison signature
to a reference signature; and
recording, by the processor, each of said plurality of
frames whose comparison signature substantially matches the
reference signature, but not recording frames whose
comparison signature does not substantially match the
reference signature.

1 Claims 6 and 18 have been cancelled. Ans. 2. Claims 16, 17 and 19-22
have been allowed. Id.

Appeal 2010-008223
Application 11/247,875

3
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)
as being anticipated by Zhang (U.S. 2006/0228029).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang and Wickes (U.S. 6,826,315).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang and Micheron (U.S. 5,440,400).
Claims 7 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang and Asch (U.S. 7,373,604).
Claims 24 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang and Thomas (U.S. 2002/0163532).
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang and Wang (U.S. 6,289,163).
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang, Asch and Thomas.
Claims 10 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Micheron and Zhang.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Micheron, Zhang and Wickes.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Micheron, Zhang and Asch.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Zhang describes “recording . . .
each of said plurality of frames whose comparison signature substantially
matches the reference signature, but not recording the frames whose

Appeal 2010-008223
Application 11/247,875

4
comparison signature does not substantially match the reference signature,”
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner’s Answer.
We agree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Zhang does not
describe the disputed limitations but instead describes calculating a frame
score for each frame and identifying all frames whose frame scores are
greater than a threshold score. App. Br. 11. We further agree that Zhang
would record frames whose frame score significantly exceeds the threshold
score (i.e., not just those frames whose frame scores substantially match the
threshold score). Id. We are unable to agree with the Examiner’s finding that
all frames with frame scores that match the threshold are recorded, and at
least some frame scores that don’t match the threshold are not recorded.
Ans. 22; see also Ans. 4 (citing Zhang ¶¶ 36, 41). Similarly we are unable to
agree with the Examiner’s finding that if and only if the frame score is in the
range of frame scores above the threshold value will the frame be recorded.
Id.
We decline to interpret the “comparison signature substantially
matches the reference signature” so broadly such that it includes a signature
or score that is greater than a threshold or such that it includes a range of
values or scores above a threshold. The term “match” is defined as: “to

Appeal 2010-008223
Application 11/247,875

5
equal; be equal to.” Random House Dictionary © 2013. Consistent with the
dictionary definition, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made would understand that a comparison signature [that]
“substantially matches” the reference signature has the ordinary and
customary meaning of a comparison signal that is “substantially equal to”
the reference signature. The Examiner does not direct us to where Zhang
describes recording each of the frames that have a frame score (i.e.,
comparison signature) that is substantially equal to the threshold (i.e.,
reference signature) and not recording frames that have frame scores that do
not substantially equal the threshold.
For all these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 as anticipated by Zhang.
Independent claim 23 recites slightly different limitations from claim
1: “processing logic configured to perform each action, wherein at least one
of the actions separates a plurality of frames each having a comparison
signature that substantially matches a given reference signature from frames
each having a comparison signature that does not substantially match the
given reference signature.” Similar to claim 1, the Examiner does not direct
us to where Zhang describes an action of separating frames that each have a
frame score (i.e., comparison signature) that is substantially equal to (i.e.,
substantially matches) the threshold (i.e., reference signature) from frames
that each have a frame score that does not substantially equal the threshold .
For this similar reason, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 23 and 26 as anticipated by Zhang.

Appeal 2010-008223
Application 11/247,875

6
Independent claim 10 recites slightly different limitations from
independent claims 1 and 23: “grouping . . . a plurality of frames in the
video stream each having a comparison signature that substantially matches
the reference signature separate from frames each having a comparison
signature that does not substantially match the reference signature.” The
Examiner relies on the combination of Micheron and Zhang to teach all of
the claim limitations, but specifically relies on Zhang for teaching the
limitation highlighted above. Ans. 9-10 (citing Zhang ¶¶ 36, 40, 41). Similar
to claims 1 and 23, the Examiner does not direct us to where Zhang
describes grouping frames that each have a frame score (i.e., comparison
signature) that is substantially equal to (i.e., substantially matches) the
threshold (i.e., reference signature) from frames that each have a frame score
that does not substantially equal the threshold. For this similar reason, we
are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 12-14
as obvious over Micheron and Zhang.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 11, 15, 24, 25 and 27-29 ultimately depend from
claims 1, 10 and 23. For the same reasons as those explained above
addressing independent claims 1, 10 and 23, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiners rejections of 2, 4, 7, 11, 15, 24, 25 and 27-29 as obvious over
the applied prior art.
In the Event of Further Prosecution
We have decided the Appeal before us. In the event of further
prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether it would have
been within the skill level of one with ordinary skill in art to modify Zhang
to substitute the identification of key frames based on whether a frame score

Appeal 2010-008223
Application 11/247,875

7
substantially matches (i.e., is substantially equal to) a reference frame score
or value, and identifying non-key frames based on whether the frame score
does not substantially match in place of Zhang’s teachings based on whether
the frame scores exceed or are below a threshold frame score (Figs. 4-5;
¶¶ 7, 8, 39-46).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5, 7-15 and 23-
29.
REVERSED

msc