Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2018

13314582 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/314,582 12/08/2011 Gene S. Lee DISNEY-0500-US 1603
94468 7590 01/08/2018
DTSNFY FNTFRPRTNFN TNC EXAMINER
c/o Patent Ingenuity, P.C.
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
NGUYEN, VU
Beverly Hills, CA 90212 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2018 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):
ssimpson@patentingenuity.com
patents@patentingenuity.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GENE S. LEE
Appeal 2016-003591
Application 13/314,582
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
MATTHEW J. MCNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
10, 16—19, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to an animation being statistically
sampled to obtain a common context. The common context is a subset of a
plurality of frames of the set of animation data. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
Appeal 2016-003591
Application 13/314,582
1. A method comprising:
statistically sampling, with a processor, a set of animation
data for an element in an animation to obtain a common context,
the common context being a subset of a plurality of frames of a
set of animation data, the common context having a set of
features common to the subset of the plurality of frames of the
set of animation data based upon a substantial frequency of the
set of features in the subset of the plurality of frames;
comparing, with the processor, output of a data-driven
model for the animation, which utilizes at least a subset of the
common context, with output of a computational model for the
animation, the computational model having a first set of logic,
the data-driven model having a second set of logic that has less
logic than the first set of logic; and
computing, with the processor, an error between the
computational model and the data-driven model.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tian-Shu Wang et al., Unsupervised Analysis of Human Gestures,
PCM 2001, LNCS 174—181 (2001) (hereinafter “Wang”).
Lie Ren et al., A Data-Driven Approach to Quantifying Natural
Human Motion, Robotics Institute, paper 288 (2005) (hereinafter
“Ren”).
Frank J. Seinstra et al., High-Performance Distributed Video Content
Analysis with Parallel-Horus, IEEE Computer Society 64—75 (2007)
(hereinafter “Seinstra”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang in view of Ren.
2
Appeal 2016-003591
Application 13/314,582
Claims 16—19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang in view of Ren and further in view of Seinstra.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Wang does not teach “substantial frequency” as
recited by claim 1 since Wang allows for the possibility of selecting a word
that occurs infrequently (App. Br. 7). Appellant asserts that based on the
Specification, “substantial frequency” would mean the highest number of
occurrences (App. Br. 7—8). In particular Appellant asserts that one skilled
in the art would understand that in scenes having a large amount of jumping
motion, but only momentary walk, the jump would be of substantial
frequency of the set of features to constitute the common context (See App.
Br. 7—8, citing to Spec, para. 20). According to Appellant, in Wang, only
two occurrences (i.e., bed) would be selected by the formula of Wang as
opposed to the six occurrences of another word (i.e., ab) (App. Br. 8).1
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant’s
Specification does not provide a definition of “substantial frequency.”
While Appellant would like us to adopt the interpretation of “substantial
frequency” as the highest frequency, the claim does not recite highest
frequency. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation the number of occurrences of a repeating
event, wherein the repeat is “substantial,” satisfies the disputed claim
limitation (Ans. 9—10).
We further agree with the Examiner that, as shown in the modified
reproduced Figure 2 of Wang below, Wang teaches the common context
1 We note that from Figure 2 we can only ascertain four occurrences of the
word “ab,” not 6 as Appellant asserted.
3
Appeal 2016-003591
Application 13/314,582
having a set of features common to the subset of the plurality of frames of
the set of animation data based upon a substantial frequency of the set of
features in the subset of the plurality of frames (Fig. 2, pg. 178,11. 12—14,
“bed” is the most compressive word for occurring two times (i.e., substantial
frequency)) (Ans. 11).
Annotated Figure 2 showing two “bed” compressive words in the
“abed” pattern is reproduced below:
Onqinal sequence, [afocdabcd bcdaba b};
Repeat pattern*: bed [ s abed d a b i] c d i
...t ' ' * ■' f t
Compress ratio is: 2 ) 1 1 O
i he bed is the most compressive word
Tho sequelico is of lanqud ter
aAaAaAabab A =; bed
Repeat above stop, the tinal result is.
| j—c i v t r l I I _
\ja b c q c d/b c d l
A f-------1 ,£ZL,
a b]
Figure 2 shows the most compressive word “bed” occurring two
times.
The Examiner notes, and we agree, that Wang teaches (Fig. 2, p. 178,
11. 45^49), the COMPRESSIVE approach selects a word that provides the
highest compression ratio (Ans. 11). Therefore, the algorithm still returns a
pattern that happens with substantial frequency (e.g., compression ratio is 2)
in the sequence (Ans. 11). We note that claim 1 does not require “highest
4
Appeal 2016-003591
Application 13/314,582
frequency” or “most frequency,” so even a number of two occurrences, in
the absence of any definition in the Specification, satisfies the required
limitation of “substantial.” It is Appellant’s burden to precisely define the
invention, not the USPTO’s. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Appellant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during
prosecution, and broad interpretation by the Examiner reduces the possibility
that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.
In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 140A-05 (CCPA 1969).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2—10, 16—19, and 21.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—10, 16—19, and 21 are
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5