Ex Parte Jeannin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 1, 2011

10029812 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 1, 2011)

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