Ex Parte Deng et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 2, 2011

10386217 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 2, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YINING DENG and TONG ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2009-009452
Application 10/386,217
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE,
and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-5, 8-18, 20-26, 28, 29, and 34, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-009452
Application 10/386,217

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of generating and rendering
annotated video files. An original video file is annotated by embedding
information enabling rendering of at least one video summary that is
contained in the annotated video file and comprises digital content
summarizing at least a portion of the original video file. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A machine-implemented method of processing an
original video file, comprising:

annotating the original video file to produce an annotated
video file containing one or more video summaries, wherein the
annotating comprises embedding in the original video file video
summary rendering information comprising one or more
pointers to respective ones of the one or more video summaries
and associating each of the one or more pointers with a
respective sequence of video frames of the annotated video file
that are summarized by a respective one of the one or more
video summaries.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, 23-26, and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gritzmacher (US
2003/0225641 A1) and Zetts (US 7,212,726 B2).
Claims 2, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gritzmacher, Zetts, and Yeo (US 6,219,837 B1).
Claims 8, 14, 28, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gritzmacher, Zetts, and Campbell (US
2003/0140159 A1).
Appeal 2009-009452
Application 10/386,217

3
Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gritzmacher, Zetts, and Lee (US 2003/0061612 A1).

Claim Groupings
In view of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUES
(1) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Gritzmacher and Zetts teaches “embedding in the original video file video
summary rendering information comprising one or more pointers to
respective ones of the one or more video summaries” and “associating each
of the one or more pointers with a respective sequence of video frames of
the annotated video file that are summarized by a respective one of the one
or more video summaries” as recited in claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Gritzmacher, Zetts, and Campbell teaches a “hierarchical arrangement of
pointers to respective portions of the annotated video file that enables
rendering of the video summaries at different levels of detail” as recited in
claim 8?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Gritzmacher
1. Gritzmacher teaches annotating an original video file to
produce an annotated video file containing one or more video summaries.
¶¶ [0039] and [0067].
Appeal 2009-009452
Application 10/386,217

4

Zetts
2. Zetts teaches a method of inserting a compressed group of
pictures (GOP) offset table within a previously encoded MPEG video file,
for frame accurate random access of each individual video frame. Abstract.
3. An uncompressed group of pictures offset table as shown in
Figure 8 is compressed into a padding packet as shown in Figure 4. Col. 9,
ll. 21-37.
4. The padding packet includes group of packet offset table
information including a starting timecode field 440, a starting group of
pictures address field 445, and compressed group of pictures offset table
entries 450. Col. 7, ll. 47-63.
5. The compressed group of pictures offset table is inserted into
the processed MPEG video file. Col. 11, ll. 27-56.
6. An MPEG decoder/player extracts the group of pictures offset
table from the MPEG file, then decompresses and stores the table. The
decompressed group of pictures offset table data structure is identical to the
original table illustrated in Figure 8. Col. 11, l. 58 to col. 12, l. 3.
7. With the group of pictures offset table, the MPEG
decoder/player is capable of randomly accessing any frame in the MPEG
video file. Col. 12, l. 40 to col. 13, l. 35.

Campbell
8. Campbell teaches a video document that possesses a
hierarchical structure that enables hierarchical access. Figs. 18-20;
¶¶ [0163] - [0177].
Appeal 2009-009452
Application 10/386,217

5

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read 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 Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citations omitted).

Obviousness
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Section 103(a) rejection of claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-18, 20-26, and 29
The Examiner finds that the timecodes in an inserted group of pictures
(GOP) offset table as taught by Zetts are pointers within the meaning of
claim 1. Ans. 20. The Examiner further finds that Gritzmacher teaches one
or more video summaries embedded in video frames. Ans. 19. The
Examiner concludes that the combination of Gritzmacher and Zetts teaches
embedding in the original video file video summary rendering information
comprising one or more pointers to respective ones of the one or more video
summaries as recited in claim 1. Ans. 21. Appellants contend that Zetts
Appeal 2009-009452
Application 10/386,217

6
does not teach “embedding in the original video file video summary
rendering information comprising one or more pointers to respective ones of
the one or more video summaries” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8; Reply
Br. 2. In particular, Appellants contend that Zetts inserts information into a
video file that can be used to build a conversion table, but the inserted
information does not constitute one or more pointers to respective ones of
the one or more video summaries. Reply Br. 3.
The “information” used by the decoder of Zetts is the compressed
GOP offset table that is embedded in the encoded MPEG file. The decoder
“builds” the GOP offset table by extracting and decompressing the GOP
offset table from the compressed MPEG file. Further, the timecodes
contained in the decompressed GOP offset table are the timecodes that are
contained in the compressed GOP offset table inserted into the compressed
MPEG file. FF 2-6. We find that inserting a compressed GOP offset table
that includes starting timecodes and starting address fields for groups of
pictures into an encoded MPEG file teaches embedding in the original video
file information comprising one or more pointers and associating each of the
one or more pointers with a respective sequence of video frames within the
meaning of claim 1.
Appellants contend that the timecode pointers taught by Zetts do not
point to the location of a video summary. Reply Br. 3. However, the
Examiner relies on Gritzmacher for teaching video summaries, and Zetts for
teaching pointers. Ans. 22. Therefore, the combination of Gritzmacher and
Zetts teaches embedding in the original video file video summary rendering
information comprising one or more pointers to respective ones of the one or
more video summaries as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2009-009452
Application 10/386,217

7
Appellants contend that neither Gritzmacher nor Zetts suggests
“associating each of the one or more pointers with a respective sequence of
video frames of the annotated video file that are summarized by a respective
one of the one or more video summaries” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-
12; Reply Br. 6-7. The Examiner relies on Gritzmacher to teach video
summaries, and relies on Zetts to teach pointers. Ans. 22. The combination
of Gritzmacher and Zetts teaches associating each of the one or more
pointers with a respective sequence of video frames of the annotated video
file that are summarized by a respective one of the one or more video
summaries as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4-5.
Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive argument to
rebut the Examiner’s findings that Gritzmacher teaches video summaries and
Zetts teaches pointers to groups of pictures. Further, Appellants have not
provided evidence or persuasive argument to show that using the timecode
pointers taught by Zetts to point to the video summaries taught by
Gritzmacher was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in
the art. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). Therefore, we find that the
combination of Gritzmacher and Zetts teaches “embedding in the original
video file video summary rendering information comprising one or more
pointers to respective ones of the one or more video summaries” and
“associating each of the one or more pointers with a respective sequence of
video frames of the annotated video file that are summarized by a respective
one of the one or more video summaries” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2009-009452
Application 10/386,217

8
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants have not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims
2-5, 9-13, 15-18, 20-26, and 29, which thus fall with claim 1.

Section 103(a) rejection of claims 8, 14, 28, and 34
Appellants contend that the combination of Gritzmacher, Zetts, and
Campbell does not suggest “embedding in the original video file a data
structure comprising a hierarchical arrangement of pointers to respective
portions of the annotated video file that enables rendering of the video
summaries at different levels of detail” as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 14-
15; Reply Br. 9. According to Appellants, the fact that Campbell teaches
hierarchical access to a video document does not say anything about the
structure of pointers to respective portions of the video document. Reply Br.
9. The Examiner relies on Zetts to teach an arrangement of pointers, and
Campbell to teach a hierarchical structure of video files. Ans. 25.
Campbell teaches a video document that possesses a hierarchical
structure that enables hierarchical access. FF 8. The combination of
Gritzmacher and Zetts teaches pointers to portions of an annotated video file
as discussed in the analysis of claim 1. Adding the hierarchical structure of
Campbell to the pointers of an annotated video file as taught by the
combination of Gritzmacher and Zetts yields the predictable result of an
annotated video document that possesses a hierarchical structure that enables
hierarchical access to the video document. Appellants have not provided a
definition of a “hierarchical arrangement of pointers to respective portions of
the annotated video file that enables rendering of the video summaries at
different levels of detail” that excludes the pointers to the hierarchical
Appeal 2009-009452
Application 10/386,217

9
structure of an annotated video document as taught by the combination of
Gritzmacher, Zetts, and Campbell. Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, we conclude that the plain meaning of “a hierarchical
arrangement of pointers to respective portions of the annotated video file
that enables rendering of the video summaries at different levels of detail”
encompasses an annotated video document that possesses a hierarchical
structure that enables hierarchical access to the video document.
We sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants have not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims
14, 28, and 34, which thus fall with claim 8.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of
Gritzmacher and Zetts teaches “embedding in the original video file video
summary rendering information comprising one or more pointers to
respective ones of the one or more video summaries” and “associating each
of the one or more pointers with a respective sequence of video frames of
the annotated video file that are summarized by a respective one of the one
or more video summaries” as recited in claim 1.
(2) The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of
Gritzmacher, Zetts, and Campbell teaches a “hierarchical arrangement of
pointers to respective portions of the annotated video file that enables
rendering of the video summaries at different levels of detail” as recited in
claim 8.

Appeal 2009-009452
Application 10/386,217

10
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, 23-26, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gritzmacher and Zetts
is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2, 5, 9, 10, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gritzmacher, Zetts, and Yeo is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 8, 14, 28, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gritzmacher, Zetts, and Campbell is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gritzmacher, Zetts, and Lee is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc