Ex Parte Forutanpour et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13007792 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/007,792 01/17/2011
23696 7590 09/21/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Babak Forutanpour
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.
101999 7500
EXAMINER
CHIO, TAT CHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BABAK FORUTANPOUR, BRIAN MOMEYER and
KARTHIC VEERA
Appeal2015-005905
Application 13/007,792
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to finally reject claims 1, 4--7, 9-19, 21-24, 26-36, 38--41, 43-53,
55-58, and 60-69. Claims 2, 3, 8, 20, 25, 37, 42, 54, and 59 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "techniques for allowing a user to
indicate the significance of portions of a video during video capturing by
applying pressure to a surface of a video capture device." Abstract.
Appeal2015-005905
Application 13/007,792
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
detecting pressure applied by a user to a surface of
a video capturing device during video capture of a
plurality of video frames;
identifying frames for which the detected pressure
exceeds a threshold;
correlating amounts of the detected pressure with
identified frames captured at the times the amounts are
detected;
generating data indicating the correlations of the
amounts of the detected pressure with the identified
frames; and
marking the identified frames that are captured
while pressure is applied to indicate a significance of the
identified frames based on the detected pressure.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4--7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21-24, 30, 31,
34, 36, 38--41, 47, 48, 51, 53, 55-58, 64, 65, and 68 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by Yabu (WO 2010/134324; Pub. Date: Nov. 25,
2010). Final Act. 7-18. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 18, 35, 52, and 69 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yabu and Agnihotri (US 2006/0165379 Al;
Jul. 27, 2006). Final Act. 18-19.
The Examiner rejected claims 9-12, 26-29, 43--46, and 60-63 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yabu and Komori (US
2006/0044955 Al; Mar. 2, 2006). Final Act. 19-23.
1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to ( 1) the Final Action, mailed Aug.
12, 2014 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 18, 2014 ("App.
Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed Apr. 7, 2015 ("Ans."); and (4) the
Reply Brief filed May 21, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-005905
Application 13/007,792
The Examiner rejected claims 15, 16, 32, 33, 49, 50, 66, and 67 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yabu and Bean (US 2003/0146981
Al; Aug. 7, 2003). Final Act. 23-32.
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION BASED ON YABU
Claims 1, 4-7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21-24, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38-41, 47, 48, 51, 53,
55-58, 64, 65, and 68
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1, 4--7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21-24, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38--41, 47,
48, 51, 53, 55-58, 64, 65, and 68 as anticipated by Yabu.
Appellants contend that Y abu fails to disclose detecting pressure
applied by a user to a surface of a video capturing device during video
capture of a plurality of video frames, as required by independent claims 1,
19, 36, and 53. App. Br. 12. Appellants assert that Yabu "is completely
silent with respect to video capture, much less detecting pressure during
video capture." App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants maintain that "Yabu
describes the tiresome process of manually going through images after
capture to select desired images" and contrasts Y abu' s approach with
paragraph 25 of the Specification that states the disclosed techniques may
eliminate the need to manually go through the video after capture or play
back the entire video. App. Br. 12-14.
On the other hand, the Examiner explains, in Yabu "[ w ]hen a user
touches the touchscreen to select frames for display, the frames are captured
by the user." Ans. 28. As such, the Examiner interprets Yabu's selecting of
the frames to correspond to the capture of a plurality of video frames.
3
Appeal2015-005905
Application 13/007,792
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's interpretation is in
error. We understand the plain and ordinary meaning of capture, within the
context of the Specification here, would be to "to record in the form of
stored data." See "capture." Webster's New World College Dictionary
(2010), available at 1lttb~~~l~~~~~~}~~}3~~:)L~~L!I~~1ii~~tLi2ll~ll~Y~~~~~i2K!Jl~~~~~lI~Lt!!~~ (last visited
September 16, 2016); see also "capture." Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary (2016), available at k!JJp_;/l?i:WYLJE~rij~rnJ~.
capture as "the act of putting information in a form that a computer can use
or read" or "the act of recording in a permanent file ").
Based on this interpretation, Y abu' s mere selection of frames fails to satisfy
the recited limitation of during the capture of a plurality of video frames, as
required by independent claims 1, 19, 36, and 53.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
4--7, 13, 14, 17, 19,21-24,30,31,34,36,38--41,47,48,51,53,55-58, 64,
65, and 68 as anticipated by Yabu.
THE REMAINING REJECTIONS BASED ON Y ABU AND
ADDITIONALLY CITED PRIOR ART
Claims 9-12, 15, 16, 18, 26--29, 32, 33, 35, 43--46, 49,
50, 52, 60--63, 66, 67, and 69
Each of claims 9-12, 15, 16, 18, 26-29, 32, 33, 35, 43--46, 49,
50, 52, 60-63, 66, 67, and 69 are dependent on one of claims 1, 19, 36, and
53. As discussed above, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 19, 36, and 53. The additionally cited prior art fail to
cure the deficiencies of Y abu and, therefore, we also find the Examiner erred
in rejecting these dependent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
4
Appeal2015-005905
Application 13/007,792
Examiner's rejection of claims 9-12, 15, 16, 18, 26-29, 32, 33, 35, 43--46,
49, 50, 52, 60-63, 66, 67, and 69 as unpatentable over the cited
combinations of prior art.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--7, 9-19, 21-
24, 26-36, 38--41, 43-53, 55-58 and 60-69.
REVERSED
5