Ex Parte Frohlich et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 8, 2012

10833531 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DAVID MARK FROHLICH, DAVID ARTHUR
GROSVENOR, and GLENN PETER HALL
____________________

Appeal 2010-004105
Application 10/833,531
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004105
Application 10/833,531

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-30, 34, and 46-52. Claims 31-33 and 35-45 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “[s]ystems and methods of producing
video data and/or audio-photos from a static digital image.” Abstract.

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 15, 20, 21, 30, 34, and 46-52 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Alsing (US 6,362,850 B1; Mar.
26, 2002). Ans. 3-10.
2. Claims 5, 6, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Alsing. Ans. 11-12.
3. Claims 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, and 22-29 stand rejected under § 103(a) as
obvious over Alsing and Amir (US 6,636,238 B1; Oct. 21, 2003).
Ans. 12-17.
4. Claim 12 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Alsing and
Kjeldsen (US 7,134,080 B2; Nov. 7, 2006). Ans. 17-18.
5. Claim 14 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Alsing, Amir,
and Cheatle (WO 02/052835 A2; July 4, 2002). Ans. 18-19.
6. Claim 17 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Alsing and
Steinberg (US 2006/0215924 A1; Sep. 28, 2006). Ans. 19.

Appeal 2010-004105
Application 10/833,531

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-30
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphases added:
1. A method of producing video data from a static digital image,
comprising:
receiving input from a user indicating sequentially, in real time, a
plurality of regions of the static digital image;
processing, by a processor, the user input to determine the visual
content of each of a sequence of video frames; and
generating, by the processor, output data representative of the
sequence of video frames;
wherein the sequence and composition of the video frames are
determined such that:
the visual content of the video frames is taken from the static
digital image;
for each region of the static digital image indicated by the user,
a video frame is composed such that the region occupies a substantial
part of the video frame; and
the sequence of video frames shows the regions indicated by
the user in sequential correspondence with the sequence in which the
user indicated the regions and substantially in pace with the time in
which the user indicated the regions.
The Examiner finds that Alsing discloses all the recited limitations of
independent claim 1. Ans. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Alsing
discloses “the sequence of video frames shows the regions indicated by the
user in sequential correspondence with the sequence in which the user
indicated the regions and substantially in pace with the time in which the
user indicated the regions.” The Examiner’s explanation is as follows:
col 5, lines 31-35, “the path of panning is manually determined
by the user through the placement of a sequence of icons in the
image that identifies key image frames. The location of the key
image frames in relation to each other determines the panning
App
App

Ans.
Figu
pace
limit
Alsin
pann
sequ
in w
the l
regar
eal 2010-0
lication 10
path” an
the user
intervals
desired
frames
interval
regions.
where th
first, sec
the user’
4-5 (emph
Figure 8
re 8 illustr
Appellan
with the t
ation. App
g disclose
ing path –
ence of vid
hich the us
anguage in
ding how
04105
/833,531
d col 5, lin
may contr
, and oth
motion ef
or video
will be sub
This is f
e timeline
ond, and t
s specific
ases in or
of Alsing
ates the cr
ts argue th
ime in whi
. Br. 7-9;
s is the m
there is ab
eo frames
er indicate
Alsing re
a user can
es 7-11, “
ol the plac
er photog
fects”; Si
frames se
stantially
urther sho
indicates
hird key fr
input of th
iginal) (ita
is reprodu
eation of a
at Alsing
ch the use
Reply Br.
anual plac
solutely n
shows reg
d such reg
lating to ti
set time in
4
According
ements of
raphic p
nce the u
quentially
with the ti
wn in fig
that key f
ames occu
ese key fr
lics omitte
ced below
movie fro
does not d
r indicated
1-3. Accor
ement of a
o teaching
ions subs
ions.” Ap
me interva
tervals be
to the pre
the frame
arameters
ser is cre
over tim
me the us
ure 8, fo
rames A, B
r over tim
ames.
d).
:
m a group
isclose th
the regio
ding to A
sequence
in Alsing
tantially in
p. Br. 8. A
ls “merely
tween fram
sent inven
s, zooms,
to create
ating the
e, each
er indicate
r timeline
, and C o
e in relati
of still im
e “substan
ns” portion
ppellants,
of icons to
that the o
pace with
ppellants
provides
es,” whic
tion,
time
the
key
time
s the
480
r the
on to

ages.
tially in
of this
“[a]ll
define a
utput
the time
add that
a teaching
h is not

Appeal 2010-004105
Application 10/833,531

5
equivalent to the claim limitation “substantially in pace with the time in
which the user indicated the regions.” Id. Moreover, Appellants assert that
Figure 8 “provides absolutely no hint that an output sequence of video
frames (generated by a processor based on user input) shows regions
indicated by the user in sequential correspondence with the sequence in
which the user indicated the regions and substantially in pace in the time in
which the user indicated the regions.” App. Br. 8-9. Finally, Appellants
assert that the user-specified time stamps disclosed by Alsing do not equate
to “any time pace associated with the placement of the sequence of icons in
the image by a user.” App. Br. 9.
We agree with Appellants. While we agree with the Examiner that the
recited limitation does not specify “exactly how playback time of the frames
is related to the input regions” (Ans. 23) and “does not require that the time
intervals of the video frames are the same as the time intervals of the input
indications” (Ans. 28) (emphases in original), we do not agree that the claim
language is so broad as to include any reference to playback timing,
including automatic intervals between frames that is independent of the
timing in which the sequence was indicated by the user. See Ans. 23-29.
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
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) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The Specification does not explicitly define the
claim term “pace.” And the Examiner does not assert that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would ascribe anything other than the plain meaning,
Appeal 2010-004105
Application 10/833,531

6
“rate of movement”1 to this term. See generally Ans. Instead, the
Specification supports a construction of the limitation “the sequence of
video frames shows the regions indicated by the user . . . substantially in
pace with the time in which the user indicated the regions” such that the rate
of movement of the frames has some relationship with the timing of the
user’s input indicating the sequence of regions. This user input is required to
be received “in real time.” For example: “The user’s indications would
effectively comprise a gestural control language for the system 25 and, as
discussed above, the resulting video movements would be rendered at a pace
determined by the timing of the original pointing movements, to enable the
video movements to remain synchronized with concurrent verbal narration.”
Spec. 15:20-24 (emphasis added); see also Spec. 7:6-10; Spec. 18:17-26.
Further, Appellants cite the following in their Summary of the Claimed
Subject Matter as supporting the limitation at issue: “The overall structure of
the video sequence is such that the regions indicated by the user are featured
in the same order as indicated by the user, and such that the time period
between subsequently featured regions corresponds with the timing pattern
in which the user indicated the regions.” Spec. 9:19-24 (emphasis added).
This interpretation is supported by the claim language “receiving
input from a user indicating sequentially, in real time, a plurality of regions
of the static digital image,” which, when read in the context of the
Specification, indicates that the timing of user’s inputs can be determined
and used to specify the pace of the frame playback. See Spec. 6:25-7:10
(“Receiving the user input in real time advantageously enables the user to

1 Pace: “rate of movement.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pace (last visited Aug. 6,
2012).
Appeal 2010-004105
Application 10/833,531

7
indicate regions of the static image while telling a story about the image or
discussing the features therein . . . the resulting video is generated in pace
with the timing of the user’s narration, which enables (if desired) the user’s
narration to serve as a soundtrack to accompany the video.”).
None of the portions of Alsing pointed to by the Examiner disclose
that the rate of movement for the sequence of video frames indicated by the
user has any sort of relationship with the timing in which the user made
those indications. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 as anticipated by Alsing.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 15, 20, 21, and 30 are dependent on claim 1.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 2-4, 7-9, 15, 20, 21, and 30.
Claims 5, 6, 10-14, 16-19, and 22-29 depend from claim 1 and were
rejected as obvious over Alsing by itself, or combined with one or more
references. Ans. 11-19. The obviousness rejections of these claims all suffer
from the same construction problem as described for claim 1 above. The
Examiner does not suggest that any of the additional references would cure
the deficiency in the Alsing disclosure resulting from the correct
interpretation of the recited limitation. Thus, we also do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 5, 6, 10-14, 16-19, and 22-29.

Claims 34 and 46-52
Independent claims 34 and 46 recite a limitation similar to, but not
exactly the same as, the limitation described above in relation to claim 1.
Independent claim 34 is reproduced below, with emphases added:
34. A video processing device comprising:
Appeal 2010-004105
Application 10/833,531

8
an input device to receive input indications from a user indicating
sequentially a plurality of regions in a static digital image, wherein
successive ones of the received input indications are separated by
respective time intervals;
a processor to:
determine the visual content of each of a sequence of video
frames in accordance with the user input indications and for capturing
the temporal relationship between the regions as indicated by the user;
and
generate output data representative of the sequence of video
frames;
wherein the sequence and composition of the video frames are
determined such that;
the visual content of the video frames is taken from the static
digital image;
for a region of the static digital image indicated by the user, a
video frame is composed such that the region occupies a substantial
part of the video frame; and
the sequence of the video frames shows the regions indicated
by the user in sequential correspondence and temporal correspondence
with the sequence of regions indicated by the user, wherein time
intervals between successive ones of the video frames are based on
the time intervals between corresponding successive ones of the
received input indications.
The Examiner finds that Alsing discloses the emphasized claim
language. First, the Examiner explains that Alsing discloses “wherein
successive ones of the received input indications are separated by respective
time intervals”:
col 5, lines 3-10, “The resulting frames from each of the still
images are then appended together to create a longer
presentation. According to the present invention, the user may
control the placements of the frames, zooms, time intervals, and
other photographic parameters to create the desired motion
Appeal 2010-004105
Application 10/833,531

9
effects”; also see placement of icon arrows in figure 4B and
their relationship to the playback of panning in the video.
Ans. 8-9 (emphases in original) (italics omitted). Next, the Examiner
explains that Alsing discloses “wherein time intervals between successive
ones of the video frames are based on the time intervals between
corresponding successive ones of the received input indications”:
col 5, line 66 - col 6, line 6, “The number of image frames 477
to generate between the key image frames 475 will be
dependent upon the following combination of variables: . . . 2)
the frame rate at which the movie will be displayed and a time
stamp associated with each key image frame. Each of the above
variables may be either preset or entered by the user” where
each of these time stamps forms time intervals between the key
frames and in figure 4B.
Ans. 9 (emphasis in original) (italics omitted).
Appellants argue that Alsing does not disclose “time intervals
between successive ones of the video frames are based on the time intervals
between corresponding successive ones of the received input indications”
because the claim language means “something different” than manually set
time intervals and user-indicated time stamps. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4-
6.
For these claims, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Unlike the limitation recited in claim 1 that requires the user’s input to be
received “in real time” and the sequence of frames be shown “substantially
in pace with the time in which the user indicated the regions,” the limitations
of claim 34 do not explicitly require any relationship between the timing of
the user’s input and the pace of the playback. Instead, claim 34 (1) does not
require that input is received in “real time,” (2) describes only that input
Appeal 2010-004105
Application 10/833,531

10
indications “are separated by respective time intervals,” and (3) playback is
“based on the time intervals between corresponding successive ones of the
received input indications.” Because the claim language does not limit how
the “respective time intervals” are set, we conclude that the broadest
reasonable construction of this language does not preclude the situation
disclosed by Alsing and pointed to by the Examiner—user-indicated time
intervals or time stamps. Ans. 8-9; 27-29. Appellants do not point to any
language in the Specification that would require the claim language to be
more narrowly construed.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments for the patentability
of claim 34 and found them unpersuasive. For these reasons, we conclude
that Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of
anticipation for independent claim 34. Appellants rely on the arguments
made with respect to claim 34 for the patentability of dependent claims 50
and 52. App. Br. 9-11. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
34, 50, and 52.
Appellants argue that claim 51 is patentable for the additional reason
that it “recites that the time intervals between successive ones of the video
frames of the output sequence generated by the processor are substantially
the same as the respective time intervals between successive ones of the
received input indications.” App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis in original). However,
this additional language also does not indicate any relationship between the
timing of the playback and the timing of the user input. Thus, this additional
language does not affect the reasons discussed above for sustaining the
rejection of claim 34 and we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
51.
Appeal 2010-004105
Application 10/833,531

11
Independent claim 46 contains similar language to that recited in
claim 34. Appellants rely on the arguments made for claim 34 in arguing the
patentability of claim 46. App. Br. 12-13. For the reasons discussed above,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 46. Claims 47-49 depend on
claim 46. Appellants do not make separate arguments for these claims. App.
Br. 12-13. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 47-49.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-30 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 34 and 46-52 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc