Ex Parte JeanninDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 1, 201110029812 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 1, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte SYLVIE JEANNIN ____________ Appeal 2009-014256 Application 10/029,812 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before GREGORY J. GONSALVES, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014256 Application 10/029,812 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-24. (App. Br. 4.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Disclosed Invention 1 The disclosed invention relates to a method for “accurate detection of the boundaries of commercial contents.” (Spec. 1:7-9.) The method compresses video data. (Spec. 7:4-7.) The method defines separators by detecting scene changes within a number of consecutive frames of video data. (Spec. 9:20 – 10:15.) The method then determines the beginning and end of a commercial break by comparing a gap between the separators. (Spec. 12:11 – 14:2.) Exemplary claim 1 follows: 1. A method for detecting commercials in a compressed video stream, the method comprising the acts of: compressing video data and generating compressed video data; detecting a plurality of separators based on said generated compressed video data, each of said separators is defined by detecting at least two consecutive scene changes within a number of consecutive frames; determining the beginning and ending of a commercial break among said plurality of separators by comparing a gap between said plurality of separators, wherein the number of consecutive frames is less than a further number of frames of the commercial break. 1 The ensuing description constitutes findings of fact. Appeal 2009-014256 Application 10/029,812 3 The Examiner rejected claim 20 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Ohta (US 6,449,021 B1). (Ans. 3.) The Examiner rejected claims 1-12, 14-19, and 21-24 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ohta and Christopher (WO 01/35409 A2). (Ans. 4.) The Examiner rejected claim 13 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ohta, Christopher, and Sakaguchi (US 5,911,029). (Ans. 7). ISSUES Appellant‟s responses to the Examiner‟s positions present the following issues: 1. Did the Examiner establish that Ohta discloses a detector configured to detect the commercial by detecting at least two consecutive scene changes in a number of consecutive frames of the video stream? 2. Did the Examiner establish that Ohta renders obvious the steps of “detecting a plurality of separators … by detecting at least two consecutive scene changes within a number of consecutive frames,” and “determining the beginning and ending of a commercial break among said plurality of separators by comparing a gap between said plurality of separators,” as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in claims 7 and 10? FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Ohta 1. Ohta discloses the detection of “a commercial candidate segment on the basis of silent segments and scene change points.” (Abstract.) Appeal 2009-014256 Application 10/029,812 4 2. Ohta‟s method “detects a scene change with respect to two successive frames and outputs the results to the commercial candidate segment detector.” (8:13-16.) 3. The commercial candidate segment detector “creates a segment (scene change segments 0 to 10 in this example) each time a frame (scene change point) having a scene change signal of 1 appears.” (9:23-27; FIG 12A.) The detector “detects scene change points as shown in FIG. 14B, creates a scene change segment (scene change segments 0 to 10 in FIG. 14C) each time the scene change points appear in the silent segments as shown in FIG. 14C.” (10:1-4; FIGS. 14A, 14B, and 14C.) PRINCIPLES OF LAW The Examiner bears an initial burden of factually supporting an articulated rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.” In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Under § 103, “„there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.‟” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted). ANALYSIS Issue 1- Claims 20 and 21 Appellant asserts that “[t]here is simply no teaching or suggestion in Ohta of detecting a commercial by detecting at least two consecutive scene changes in a number of consecutive frames [of] the video stream.” (App. Appeal 2009-014256 Application 10/029,812 5 Br. 13.) Appellant argues that “a commercial candidate is detected in Ohta based on the time of scene change segments.” (App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).) But even if Ohta bases commercial detection in part on the time of the scene change segments as Appellant alleges, that does not prevent Ohta from also detecting a commercial “by detecting at least two consecutive scene changes,” as required by claim 20. Indeed, as explained by the Examiner, Ohta includes a detector that “detects the scene change with respect to two successive frames and record[s] the scene change frame with „1‟ and other frames with „0‟.” (Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted); accord FF 2.) Subsequently, Ohta uses these detected scene changes to detect commercials. (Ans. 8-9; accord FF 3.) For these reasons, we find that Ohta discloses “a detector configured to detect the commercial by detecting at least two consecutive scene changes,” as recited in claim 20. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of independent claim 20, as well as the rejection of the claim dependent therefrom (i.e., claim 21) because Appellant did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for claim 21. Issue 2- Claims 1-19 and 22-24 Appellant asserts that “Ohta does not teach or suggest detecting separators defined by detecting at least two consecutive scene changes.” (App. Br. 14.) As discussed supra, however, Ohta does teach this claim element. Appellant also asserts that “Ohta does not teach or suggest: „determining the beginning and ending of a commercial break among said plurality of separators by comparing a gap between said plurality of Appeal 2009-014256 Application 10/029,812 6 separators‟.” (App. Br. 14 (emphasis omitted).) Appellant argues that “Ohta detects commercials using a long process,” as illustrated in FIGS. 14A-14G. (App. Br. 14-15.) As explained by the Examiner, however, FIG. 14C of Ohta shows a plurality of separators as scene change segments containing at least two scene changes. (Ans. 10-11; accord FF 2.) Moreover, FIG 14G shows a commercial as a gap that begins with the beginning of scene change segment 1 and ends with the ending of scene change element 4. (Ans. 11; accord FF 3.) Accordingly, Ohta does disclose “determining the beginning and ending of a commercial break among said plurality of separators by comparing a gap between said plurality of separators,” as recited by independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 7 and 10. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 10, as well as the rejection of the claims dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-19, and 22-24) because Appellant did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for these dependent claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner‟s decision rejecting claims 1-24. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation