Ex Parte Masuda

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

12995610 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/995,610 12/01/2010 Tooru Masuda
22850 7590 06/07/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
353134US8PCT 2117
EXAMINER
LEE,KWANGB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOORU MASUDA
Appeal2016-007581 1
Application 12/995,610
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. An oral hearing was held on April 24,
2018. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The record includes a transcript of the oral hearing held April 24, 2018.
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention generally relates to displaying additional
information with a feature point in an image. Spec. ,r 1. For example,
Appellant's invention allows adding hand-drawn data to decorate a moving
image in moving image content. Spec. ,r 23. Claims 1 and 10, which are
illustrative, read as follows:
1. An image processing device comprising:
circuitry configured to
detect a feature point from stored moving image
data;
associate the feature point with additional
information, the feature point being selected based on
feature point selection information, wherein the additional
information includes image data that is displayed as added
to a reproduction of the stored moving image data;
analyze a changing behavior of the feature point
through the reproduction of the stored moving image data;
generate data indicating change content to change
display of the image data of the additional information
associated with the feature point based on motion
information indicating the behavior of the feature point
analyzed and a display scenario indicating a change
pattern to change the additional information associated
with the feature point according to the behavior of the
feature point; and
control a display device to display the reproduction
of the stored moving image data and to display the image
data of the additional information based on the change
content such that the image data of the additional
information has motion corresponding to motion of the
feature point of the stored moving image data.
2
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
10. The image processing device according to claim 1,
wherein when selection information to select at least two feature
points is input, the circuitry is configured to generate data to
generate a display size of the additional information according to
a distance between the at least two feature points.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Ohmori et al.
Sonoda et al.
Kowald
US 6,339,431 Bl
US 2006/0126963 Al
US 7,606,397 B2
Rejection
Jan. 15,2002
June 15, 2006
Oct. 20, 2009
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kowald, Ohmori, and Sonoda. Final
Act. 2-17.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err by finding that the combination of Kowald,
Ohmori, and Sonoda teaches or suggests
generate data indicating change content to change display
of the image data of the additional information associated with
the feature point based on motion information indicating the
behavior of the feature point analyzed and a display scenario
indicating a change pattern to change the additional information
associated with the feature point according to the behavior of the
feature point,
as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
Appellant contends the cited references do not teach or suggest the
disputed limitations. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 1-3. According to Appellant,
the Examiner incorrectly finds Kowald's metadata teaches the claimed
"additional information." App. Br. 6 ( citing Final Act. 3). Appellant argues
Kowald does not teach displaying the metadata as added to a reproduction of
the edited sequence or generating data indicating change content to change a
display of the metadata, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6-7. Appellant
further argues "even assuming arguendo that using metadata (524) as
prompts in the editing process in Kowald corresponds to displaying the
metadata (524), Kowald still fails to describe generating the change content
and changing display of the metadata (524) based on the change content
such that the metadata (524) has a motion corresponding to the associated
features." App. Br. 7.
Appellant argues "Sonoda does not describe displaying additional
information together with the reproduction of the photo movie, much less
generating data indicating change content to change the additional
information based on the scenario file." Id.; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellant argues Sonoda, instead, teaches using the scenario file for creating
or editing the photo movie. App. Br. 7. Appellant argues the cited
references, therefore, "at best describe creating a movie by altering the
sequence of various video segments based on the scenario file, and cannot
reasonably be interpreted as describing moving the prompts or annotations
based on the scenario file during the playback of the movie." App. Br. 8.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. The Examiner
finds Ohmori teaches capturing images via a digital video camera or a digital
still camera and storing image data corresponding to the captured images.
4
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
Ans. 3 (citing Kowald, Fig. 5; 5:10-13, 27--44). Kowald teaches that a
classification system analyzes the captured images and outputs classification
data, configured as metadata, associated with each image. Kowald 5:27-32.
The Examiner also finds Kowald teaches using a template-based approach to
output an edited sequence of the captured images based on the metadata.
Ans. 3--4 ( citing Kowald 7:40-55; 8:20-30; 11 :42-50). The Examiner finds
Ohmori teaches a system for allowing a user to add an annotation to a
dynamic image displayed on a portable terminal. Ans. 7-8 ( citing Ohmori,
Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner also finds Ohmori teaches displaying the
annotation matched to the content of the dynamic image while displaying the
dynamic image changing over time. Ans. 8. The Examiner finds Sonoda
describes an editing program containing various accompanying data, the
accompanying data including a scenario file and decorative images to
decorate frame images. Ans. 8. Thus, the Examiner asserts
By combining the above editing methods such as the Kowald's
[] editing system, the Ohmori' s editing annotation, and the
Sonoda' s editing scenario selection, the combined method can
clearly support the reproduction of the images and the video data
with changing the additional information based on the scenario
file, therefore it would be obvious the method in Kowald as
modified by Ohmori and Sonoda to provide a display scenario
indicating a change pattern to change the additional information
associated with the moving object according to the behavior of
the object.
Ans. 8. As such, the Examiner relies upon the combined teaching of the
references to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Appellant's
arguments do not persuasively address the Examiner's findings regarding the
combined teachings of the references and, therefore, are unpersuasive of
error. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
5
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
Appellant's argument that the cited references "at best describe creating a
movie by altering the sequence of various video segments based on the
scenario file, and cannot reasonably be interpreted as describing moving the
prompts or annotations based on the scenario file during the playback of the
movie" (App. Br. 8) is unpersuasive because it is essentially based on a
bodily incorporation of the teachings of Ohmori and Sonoda into the system
of Kowald. However, "it is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The relevant
inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to
those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
We note for emphasis that Ohmori teaches "if the annotation is added
to a person's image in the dynamic image and the person's image moves to
another position ... the annotation is also moved by moving of the person's
image in the dynamic image." Ohmori 7:41-53. Ohmori further teaches:
[T]he annotation is moved the same distance as the object.
However, as shown in FIG. 17, the annotation F5 often
disappears when the display position of the annotation moves in
synchronization with the object OBJl movement. In this case, as
shown in FIGS. 18A and 18B, if all image area of the annotation
is located inside the frame when the display position of the
annotation is moved, the annotation is displayed as it is. As
shown in FIG. 18C, when all image area of the annotation is
located outside the frame when the display position of the
annotation is moved, a reflected image F5' of the annotation F5
may be displayed at opposite position of the object OBJl. As a
method to generate the reflected image F5 ', a symmetric image
of the annotation F5 for a vertical line passing through a center
of gravity of the object OBJl is created on the frame.
6
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
Ohmori 9:35--49; see also Ohmori Figs. 18A---C. Thus, Ohmori teaches or
suggests "generat[ing] data indicating change content to change display of
the image data of the additional information associated with the feature point
[e.g., generation of the reflected image F5'] based on motion information
indicating the behavior of the feature point analyzed and a display scenario
indicating a change pattern to change the additional information associated
with the feature point according to the behavior of the feature point [ e.g.,
when the image area of the annotation is located outside the frame when the
display position of the annotation is moved]."
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Kowald, Ohmori, and Sonoda teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by combining Kowald, Ohmori, and Sonoda?
Appellant contends the combination of Kowald, Ohmori, and Sonoda
is improper. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3--4. In particular, Appellant contends
the combination of cited references is improper because Kowald and Sonoda
are non-analogous art. App. Br. 8. In this regard, Appellant argues:
Kowald describes a method and system for automated
classification of digital images and/ or shots for convenient video
editing by a filmmaker. Sonoda describes a frame classification
information providing device for creating a photo movie.
Therefore, at best Kowald and Sonoda are directed to technology
pertinent to editing a piece of moving image data itself. In
contrast, Claim 1 of the present application is directed to
arranging movement of an image that is displayed as added to a
reproduction of a piece of moving image data. As such, the
structure and method of editing a video in Kowald and Sonoda
and the present application cannot be considered by a person
having ordinary skill in the art as being directed to the same field
7
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
of endeavor, and the matter Kowald and Sonoda deal with cannot
logically commend itself to the attention of one of ordinary skill
in the art in considering the problem he/she faced.
App. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's contentions. "A reference
qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only
when it is analogous to the claimed invention." In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). "Two separate tests define the
scope of analogous prior art: ( 1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2004) (citation
omitted); see also Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348.
Although the Specification describes and recites displaying image
data of additional information based on change content such that the image
data of the additional information has motion corresponding to motion of a
feature point of moving image data in the written description and claims,
"[t]he field of endeavor of a patent is not limited to the specific point of
novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular
focus within a given field." Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d
995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellant's Specification provides that the
invention relates to "an image processing device, an image processing
method, and computer program that display additional information displayed
to be accompanied with a feature point in an image." Spec. ,r 1; see also
Spec., Title. Thus, we find the field of endeavor is image processing devices
and methods. Kowald is related to automated classification of digital images
8
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
and editing a sequence of images based upon the classification to achieve a
desired aesthetic effect. Kowald, Abstract. Sonoda is related to an image
editing device for creating a photo movie based on frame classification
information. Sonoda, Abstract. As such, we find Kowald and Sonoda are
both directed to imaging processing devices and methods and, therefore,
within Appellant's field of endeavor.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Kowald, Ohmori, and Sonoda teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations.
Claim 10
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Kowald,
Ohmori, and Sonoda teaches or suggests "wherein when selection
information to select at least two feature points is input, the circuitry is
configured to generate data to generate a display size of the additional
information according to a distance between the at least two feature points,"
as recited in claim 1 O?
With respect to claim 10, the Examiner finds Kowald teaches "adding
extra information and selecting a desired template to achieve a desired visual
effect" and, therefore, teaches or suggests "wherein when selection
information to select at least two feature points is input." Final Act. 9 ( citing
Kowald 1:31-32, 10: 1-17). The Examiner finds Ohmori teaches or suggests
the remaining limitations of claim 10. Id. (citing Ohmori, Figs. 15-16;
claim 1; col. 8:47---63, 9:7-22). In the Answer, the Examiner finds:
Kowald discloses determining a size of the located face with
respect to a size of the image; and classifying the image based on
the relative size of the face with respect to the image in col. 4:
9
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
26-34 (Kowald). In addition, the Kowald uses a zoom feature,
so that during the zoom, the image is automatically cropped to
retain a size within that of the display. Once the correct sequence
is formed, the sequence is edited in step [720] by applying the
selected template to the sequence, and this results in the output
presentation of step [722] which may be sent for storage or
directly reproduced to a display arrangement in col. 11: 11-19,
38-50 (Kowald).
Ans. 10.
Appellant contends the combination of Kowald, Ohmori, and Sonoda
does not teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 10 because the cited
references do not teach or suggest determining a display size of an
annotation based on two selected objects. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4.
According to Appellant, "Ohmori describes that, when a user inputs an
annotation, the system selects the object that has the least distance to the
input annotation among plural objects as the object associated with the input
annotation." App. Br. 9 (citing Ohmori 8:47-63). Appellant argues
Ohmori, however, "does not describe determining a display size of the
annotation based on two selected objects," as required by claim 10. Id.
Appellant argues Kowald' s teaching regarding the use of a zoom feature
fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because Kowald does not
teach that the zoom feature generates data for generating a display size of the
additional information according to a distance between at least two feature
points, as required by claim 10. Reply Br. 4.
We find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Ohmori teaches "[b]y
referring to the display position [of an object] stored as the variables M, m,
the annotation transformation processing section 105f calculates a moving
distance (Xm, Y m) of the object OBJI from the previous frame to the
present frame, and moves the display position of the annotation as (Xm,
10
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
Ym) on the present frame," thus the object and the annotation are moved an
equal distance. Ohmori 9:6-18; see also Ohmori, Fig. 16; col. 9:60-63,
10:32-34. Ohmori, therefore, teaches determining a movement of additional
information ( e.g., an annotation) according to a distance between two feature
points. With respect to a size of the annotation, Ohmori teaches that the size
of the annotation is enlarged or reduced in proportion to the enlargement or
reduction of the size of the object and not according to the distance between
at least two feature points, as required by claim 10. See Ohmori col. 9:50-
55.
We agree with the Examiner that Kowald teaches determining a size
of a face with respect to a size of an image and automatically cropping an
image to retain a size within that of the display. Ans. 10 ( citing Kowald
4:26-34; 11: 11-19, 38-50). However, the Examiner's findings fail to
explain how determining a size of a face with respect to a size of an image
and automatically cropping the image to retain a size within that of the
display, as taught by Kowald, teaches or suggests generating a display size
of the additional information according to a distance between the at least
two feature points, as required by claim 10.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
11
Appeal2016-007581
Application 12/995,610
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12