Ex Parte Gargi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2011

10803252 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ULLAS GARGI
_____________

Appeal 2009-007930
Application 10/803,252
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007930
Application 10/803,252

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to method, computer readable medium, and
system for playing back video segments at different speeds based upon a
video segment’s score. Additionally, a user may adjust the score in order to
adjust the playback speed for the video segment. See Spec: 1-2. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for variable speed video playback, comprising:
obtaining a set of scores for a plurality of discrete segments
in a digital video;
enabling a playback of said digital video at a variable
playback speed that may change from segment to segment
based on said set of scores;
receiving a user input to adjust said playback speed for at
least one of said segments by modifying at least one of said set
of scores; and
adjusting said variable playback speed based on said user
input, said adjusting including reversing said variable playback
speed based on said user input.

REFERENCES
Breese US 6,144,964 Nov. 7, 2000

Amir US 6,907,570 B2 Jun. 14, 2005
(filed Mar. 29, 2001)

2
Appeal 2009-007930
Application 10/803,252

Jojic US 7,152,209 B2 Dec. 19, 2006
(filed Mar. 28, 2003)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-5, 7-18, 20-35, and 37-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jojic in view of Amir. Ans. 3-8.
Claims 6, 19, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jojic in view of Amir and Breese. Ans. 8.

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Claim 1
Appellant argues on pages 13-15 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-5 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has misinterpreted the claim limitation
that discloses reversing variable playback speed. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4.
Therefore, Appellant argues that neither Jojic nor Amir discloses “adjusting
including reversing said variable playback speed based on said user input” as
recited in claim 1.
Thus, with respect to claim 1, Appellant’s contention presents us with
the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Jojic in view of Amir
discloses adjusting including reversing said variable playback speed based
on said user input?
3
Appeal 2009-007930
Application 10/803,252

Claims 2-15
Appellant argues on page 15 of the Appeal Brief and page 5 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-15 is in error. Claims
2-15 are dependent upon claim 1. Appellant argues that claims 2-15 should
be allowed for the same reason as claim 1. App. Br. 15. Thus, with respect
to claims 2-15, Appellant’s contention presents us with the same issue as
claim 1.
Claims 16, 31, and 33
Appellant argues on page 15 of the Appeal Brief and page 5 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 31, and 33 is in error.
Claims 16, 31, and 33 contain similar limitations to claim 1. Appellant
argues that claims 16, 31, and 33 should be allowed for the same reason as
claim 1. App. Br. 15. Thus, with respect to claims 16, 31, and 33,
Appellant’s contention presents us with the same issue as claim 1.
Claims 17-30, 32, and 34-45
Appellant argues on page 15 of the Appeal Brief and page 5 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-30, 32, and 34-45 is
in error. Claims 17-30, 32, and 34-45 are dependent upon claims 16, 31, and
33. Appellant argues that claims 17-30, 32, and 34-45 should be allowed for
the same reason as claims 16, 31, and 33. App. Br. 15. Thus, with respect
to claims 17-30, 32, and 34-45, Appellant’s contention presents us with the
same issue as claims 16, 31, and 33.
4
Appeal 2009-007930
Application 10/803,252

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Claim 1
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1. Appellant argues that the Examiner misinterpreted the
claim limitation “adjusting including said variable playback speed based on
said user input,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14. The Examiner finds that
the concept of “reverse playback” is well known in the art. Ans. 13. Even
so, the Examiner uses Amir to teach this limitation (citing col. 6, l. 66-col. 7,
l. 4) that discloses playing back full videos at various speeds (including fast
playback or slow motion), a full video at a fixed or variable speed
determined by the user, and a reverse playback (including fast reverse).
Ans. 14. Appellant argues that the “reverse playback” disclosed by Amir is
not the same as the reverse playback disclosed in the Specification. Reply
Br. 14-15. However, the portion of the Specification indicated by Appellant
as describing “reverse playback” does not contain a specific definition for
the term. Therefore, the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “reverse
playback” as the well known meaning is reasonable and we adopt the
Examiner’s interpretation. As a result, we do not find Appellant’s
arguments to be persuasive.
Further, we note that Appellant’s Specification on page 13 states that
“reverse playback” is intended to mean “the user may slow down segments
of the digital video having a low score and/or speed up segments having a
high score.” Amir indicates, at column 7, lines 1-2 (the portion cited by the
Examiner) that the video playback can be sped up or slowed down. Thus,
Amir does disclose “reverse playback” in a manner consistent with
5
Appeal 2009-007930
Application 10/803,252

Appellants’ Specification. As a result, Appellant’s arguments would still not
be persuasive.
Claims 2-15
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent
claim 1. Thus, we similarly sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-15.
Claims 16, 31, and 33
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 31, and 33. Independent claims 16, 31,
and 33 contain similar limitations to claim 1. Appellant’s arguments present
the same issues discussed above with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 15.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 31, and 33 for
the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Claims 17-30, 32, and 34-45
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent
claims 16, 31, and 33. Thus, we similarly sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 17-30, 32, and 34-45.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Jojic in view of Amir
discloses adjusting including reversing said variable playback speed based
on said user input.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-45 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).
6
Appeal 2009-007930
Application 10/803,252

AFFIRMED

ELD

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P.O. BOX 272400, 3404 HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400
7