Ex Parte Eledath et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

13727223 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131727,223 12/26/2012
14824 7590 09/27/2016
Moser Taboada/ SRI International
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JAY AKRISHNAN KUMAR ELEDATH
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.
SRI15571CON 1341
EXAMINER
CHOU,ALANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAYAKRISHNAN KUMAR ELEDATH,
SARAH PARIS-MASCICKI, VINCENT ENDRES, and
BARBARA HANNA
Appeal2015-000839
Application 13/727 ,223
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20, all the pending
claims in the present application. Claims 9 and 17 are canceled. See Claim
Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The present invention relates generally to capturing an event of
interest using a plurality of cameras. See Abstract.
Appeal2015-000839
Application 13/727,223
Claim l is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for focusing cameras
on an area of activity in an event comprising:
selecting salient objects from a field of view in a video
stream, generated by a plurality of cameras, where saliency is
determined by shape, appearance and motion of the objects;
analyzing activity in the field of view to extract patterns
from the field of view, where the patterns are at least one of temporal
and spatial;
determining a region of interest based on the extracted
patterns and the selected salient objects in view of content specific
rules corresponding to a type of the event; and
focusing one or more of the plurality of cameras on the
determined region of interest based on the content specific rules,
wherein the content specific rules comprise at least one
rule for focusing the plurality of cameras on a portion of the region of
interest based on the relationship of salient objects in the region of
interest.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1-8, 10, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wixson (US 6,303,920 Bl; Oct. 16,
2001), Ortiz (US 7,796,162 B2; Sep. 14, 2010), and Zhou (US
2006/0170769 Al; Aug. 3, 2006) (Final Act. 2-7); and
R2. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wixson, Ortiz, Zhou, and Conant (US 2003/0108242 Al;
June 12, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 10-13
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined cited art,
particularly Ortiz, teaches or suggests focusing ... cameras on the
2
Appeal2015-000839
Application 13/727,223
determined region of interest based on the content specific rules, as set forth
in claim 1 ?
Appellants contend that "[ c ]ombining the manual positioning of
cameras at a venue according to the type of event ... with the detection of
salient motion of object shapes between two frames ... does not make
'focusing one or more of the plurality of cameras on the determined region
of interest based on content specific rules' ... obvious" (App. Br. 10).
Appellants further contend that "there is a distinct difference between a
computerized algorithm for focusing the cameras based on content specific
rules ... and a mere manual positioning of cameras based on knowledge of
the type of an event within a venue" (id.). Appellants emphasize that "Ortiz
expressly teaches only strategic physical positioning of cameras around a
stadium venue, and does not teach focusing cameras on detected regions of
interest based on 'content specific rules"' (App. Br. 10).
In response, the Examiner finds that "one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references" (Ans. 4), and that "Wixson and Zhou
both teach[] expressly determining a region of interest and stay[ing] focused
on the region ... [and] Ortiz teaches the use of content specific rules
corresponding to a type of the event" (id.). We agree with the Examiner.
Specifically, the Examiner mainly brings in Ortiz to teach the use of
content specific rules to achieve focusing of a plurality of cameras (see Final
Act. 3; see also Ans. 3--4 ), Wixson to teach determining a region of interest
based on extracted patterns (id.), and Zhou to teach tracking a salient object
based on the shape (Final Act 4; see also Ans. 3--4). As such, Appellants'
arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior
3
Appeal2015-000839
Application 13/727,223
art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore
ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.") (citations omitted). This
reasoning is applicable here.
Ortiz discloses that a plurality of cameras "are respectively positioned
at strategic points about venue 80 to capture best images of activity taking
place within venue 80" (10: 16-20). We find that one of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize that the strategic positioning of cameras entails a careful
plan or method of positioning cameras, i.e., specific rules corresponding to
the type of event. Although Appellants argue that "there is a distinct
difference between a computerized algorithm for focusing the cameras based
on content specific rules ... and a mere manual positioning of cameras
based on knowledge of the type of an event within a venue" (see App. Br.
10), we note that claim 1 does not require algorithmically focusing the
cameras, as proffered by Appellants. Instead, claim 1 merely recites, inter
alia, focusing one or more of the plurality of cameras on the determined
region of interest based on the content specific rules (see claim 1 ), which
includes manual focusing. As such, Appellants' aforementioned contention
is unavailing and, in any event, not commensurate with the scope of the
claim.
4
Appeal2015-000839
Application 13/727,223
In any case, a claimed invention is not patentable if it merely
automates a prior art process. Broadly providing an automatic way to
replace a manual activity accomplishing the same result is not sufficient to
distinguish an automated process over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d
91, 95 (CCPA 1958).
Appellants further contend that "[t]he Examiner fails to present such a
rational underpinning" to support the legal conclusion of obviousness (App.
Br. 13). We disagree with Appellants. Here, the Examiner notes that "[t]he
motivation for doing so would have been to capture the best image of
activity taking place" (see Final Act 4). As such, the Examiner has found
actual teachings in the prior art and has provided a sufficient rationale for the
combination.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 13 relies on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not
argue separate patentability for dependent claims 7, 8, 10-12. See App. Br.
8-15. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8,
and 10-13.
Claims 2, 3, and 14-16
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Wixson teaches or
suggest a region ... that is determined ... to have a relatively high degree of
motion, as set forth in claim 2?
Appellants contend that in Wixson "[t]his cumulative flow field
would not indicate a relatively high degree of motion (as compared to other
5
Appeal2015-000839
Application 13/727,223
extracted patterns), but would only indicate how far a point in one image has
moved in a subsequent image" (App. Br. 16). We agree with Appellants.
Although the Examiner finds that "Wixson teaches extracted patterns
to have a relative degree of motion as flow field ... that has high degree of
motion" (Ans. 6), the Examiner fails to point out precisely where Wixson
identifies or considers whether a pattern is moving with a relatively high
degree of motion. Instead, Wixson merely describes "a cumulative flow
field that can be used to generate a measure of salience for each image point
[and] ... the resulting salience measure allows a motion detection method"
(2: 1-7). In other words, as noted by Appellants, Wixson merely detects
motion and how far a point has moved, but fails to distinguish those
extracted patterns that have a relatively high degree of motion, as required
by claim 2.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection. We, accordingly, do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 2, or the rejection of dependent claim 14 for
similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversal of
dependent claims 2 and 14, we need not address Appellants' separate
arguments regarding claims 3, 15, and 16. We, therefore, also do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 15, and 16.
Claims 4 and 5
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that Wixson teaches or
suggests assembling the extracted patterns into larger patterns, as set forth in
claim 4?
6
Appeal2015-000839
Application 13/727,223
Appellants contend that "the cumulative flow field in Wixson is only
used as a measure of salience, and has nothing to do with 'larger patterns'
converging. The cumulative flow field of Wixson is only used to measure
motion of each pixel in the motion" (App. Br. 17). Appellants further add
that they "fail to see how Wixson makes the jump from pixel travel distance
to establishing 'larger patterns"' (Reply Br. 8). We agree with Appellants.
Although the Examiner finds that "Wixson teaches using flow fields
or extracted pattern and assemble them [sic] into a cumulative flow field to
determine a larger pattern indicating a global activity" (Ans. 8, citing
Wixson 4:40-60), the Examiner fails to explain what precisely in Wixson is
the larger patterns. Instead, as indicated supra by Appellants, Wixson's
flow fields merely shows a cumulative travel distance, i.e., a 2D vector, not
larger patterns indicating a global activity, as required by claim 4.
For example, Wixson discloses that "the flow fields are used by the
salience measure generator 136 to detect salient motion. . .. one can track
an image point from It to I1 by using the frame-to-frame flow fields ... the
frame-to-frame flow fields could be combined into a 'cumulative' flow
field" (4:35--41; see also 3:14--34).
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references, particularly Wixson, set forth by the
Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection. We, accordingly, do
not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4, or the rejection of dependent
claim 5 for similar reasons.
7
Appeal2015-000839
Application 13/727,223
Claim 6
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding that Zhou teaches or
suggests determining a region in the field of view with a relatively large
number of salient objects, as set forth in claim 6?
Appellants contend that "according to Zhou, the detection of several
blobs is an error ... if Zhou merges the several blobs into one, the region of
interest cannot be determined by the large number of salient objects" (App.
Br. 18). We agree with Appellants.
Although the Examiner finds that "Zhou teaches one blob object ...
could include multiple blob objects tracked together [and] Zhou teaches
detecting multiple blobs objects and treats it as a single blob" (Ans. 8)
(citations omitted), the Examiner fails to explain how Zhou' s "blob merge"
technique relates to determining a relatively large number of salient objects,
as set forth in claim 6. Zhou merely discloses that "[b ]ecause of noise and
occlusion, one object may include several blobs. For this reason, the
immediate invention imposes an additional step, 'blob merge', to simulate a
whole object" (i-f 31 ). In other words, Zhou considers noise and occlusion in
merging blobs. However, the Examiner has not shown how Zhou's merge
step determines a relatively large number of salient objects.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references, particularly Zhou, set forth by the
Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection. We, accordingly, do
not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6.
8
Appeal2015-000839
Application 13/727,223
Claims 18-20
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err in finding that Ortiz teaches or
suggests focusing the plurality of cameras on an automatically identified
location of a play in the event, as set forth in claim 18?
Appellants contend that "Ortiz clearly does not teach an
'automatically identified location,' because the placement of cameras in the
venue of Ortiz is performed a priori and performed manually" (App. Br. 19).
In response, the Examiner finds that Ortiz "teaches focusing camera
and moving the camera 360 degrees rotation to a detected region of interest"
(Ans. 9) and that "Wixson and Zhou both teach automatically tracking of
salient objects" (id.) (citations omitted). Here, Appellants merely argue the
teachings of Ortiz and fail to rebut the Examiner's collective findings (see
Reply Br. 9). As such, Appellants' arguments do not take into account what
the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art and is therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 ("The test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.") (citations
omitted). This reasoning is applicable here because Appellants fail to
address the Examiner's specific findings regarding Wixson and Zhou, i.e.,
automatically identified location. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 18.
9
Appeal2015-000839
Application 13/727,223
Furthermore, we note that claims 19 and 20 do not include/require
"automatically identified location," so therefore Appellants' sole argument
here is not commensurate with the scope of claims 19 and 20. Accordingly,
we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 19 and 20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2---6 and 14--
16.
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 7, 8, 10-13,
and 18-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10