Ex parte Miller et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 2000

08328394 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte GAVIN S. P. MILLER
and ERIC M. HOFFERT
_____________
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 42, all of the claims remaining in the
application.
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
2
The invention is directed to the selection of objects
from a moving image sequence of images. Auxiliary data is
stored in a
buffer, along with a video track, so as to precisely identify
objects which can be selected from within each frame of the
video track.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A method for labeling and subsequently identifying
selected areas within images from a sequence of
temporally related images represented by a plurality of
tracks
of image data which are operative to be displayed by
a display of a computer, the computer having a memory for
storing the plurality of tracks, wherein one of the
plurality of tracks is operative to be displayed by
the computer at the same time as a second track of
the
plurality of tracks, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) identifying an area to be labeled within an
image from said sequence of images;
(b) labeling every pixel within said identified
area with an area identifier which is unique to
said area;
(c) storing each labeled pixel in a labeled
portion of memory linked to said image;
(d) repeating steps (a) through (c) for each
identified area within each image from said
sequence of images;
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
3

(e) interrogating said memory in response to a
user's selection of a pixel location within a
selected area from a selected image of said
images displayed on said display to locate a
labeled portion of memory corresponding to said
selected image, said selected area being one
of said areas identified in step (a);
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
4
(f) evaluating said labeled portion corresponding
to said selected image to locate an area
identifier corresponding to said pixel location;
and
(g) identifying said area identifier to said
computer as an indication of said selected
area.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Aisaka et al. (Aisaka) 5,021,770 Jun. 4,
1991 Preston et al. (Preston) 5,174,759 Dec.
29, 1992
Tonomura, Y. et al. (Tonomura), “Content Oriented Visual
Interface Using Video Icons for Visual Database Systems,” IEEE
68-72 (1989).
Claims 1 through 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Aisaka in view of Preston and
Tonomura.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
In accordance with appellants’ grouping of the claims, at
page 6 of the principal brief, claims 1 through 39 stand or
fall together and each of claims 40, 41 and 42 stands alone.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 through 39,
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
5
which includes all of the independent claims. These claims,
in one form or another, all include, inter alia, the
limitations of
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
6
a video, or sequence of “temporally related images,” a
plurality of tracks displayed at the same time and the
identification of selected areas within images.
The examiner applies Aisaka against the claims for its
teaching of selecting locations within a single, static image
on a screen but notes that Aisaka lacks the claimed “sequence
of temporally related images.” The examiner applies Preston
for a teaching of selection of locations on a displayed image
wherein the selection is made from live-motion, animated
“tracks.” The examiner contends that it would have been
obvious to apply the teachings of Aisaka to live-motion images
so as to give a user a more useful live-motion interface in
which objects in the display bear codes which can be
retrieved. Tonomura was then applied to show plural, pointer
selectable video icons which are concurrently presented on a
single display, with the additional reasoning that it would
have been obvious to give a user access to plural live-motion
images. Thus, the examiner applied Aisaka for its teaching of
identification of selected areas within images, Preston for
its teaching of a “sequence of temporally related images,” and
Tonomura for its teaching of a plurality of tracks displayed
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
7
at the same time. Preston’s teachings are combined with
Aisaka’s in order to provide the advantages of Aisaka’s
identification of selected areas within still images to moving
images and this combination is combined with the teachings of
Tonomura in order to expand the applicability to a plurality
of moving images.
The examiner’s rationale does not appear, to us, to be
unreasonable. It appears that a prima facie case of
obviousness has been made out by the examiner since the
various teachings of the prior art appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter, as explained by the examiner.
Thus, the burden has shifted to appellants to overcome the
prima facie case via arguments or some objective evidence
tending to show nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter.
Appellants argue that the video icons of Tonomura are
simply a moving video version of conventional computer icons
and that there is no discussion or suggestion in Tonomura of
having selection of different locations of a frame of a video
icon result in different actions occurring. This is true, but
Aisaka is relied upon for the teaching of a selection of
different locations of an image resulting in different actions
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
8
occurring.
Appellants then argue that Aisaka teaches obtaining more
information about a particular region in an image by selecting
a location on that image but that Aisaka provides no
suggestion that this location selection can be applied to
multiple video images concurrently moving on the screen.
Moreover, contend appellants, it would be “nonsensical” to
provide multiple moving images in Aisaka because the user’s
ability to select a particular location would be hindered by
such movement. However, the rejection employs Preston for the
teaching of multiple moving images and merely contends that
Aisaka’s method of obtaining more information from a still
image would be applied to images that move, such image
movement being shown by Preston. It is more a matter of
applying Aisaka’s teaching to a moving image environment than
to bodily incorporating moving images into the Aisaka system,
as appellants appear to be suggesting in their argument.
Thus, while appellants may be correct in their assessment that
there is no suggestion to provide multiple moving video images
in Aisaka, they fail to recognize the obviousness of expanding
Aisaka’s method of identifying areas in still images to use in
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
9
moving images. Thus, the rejection does not attempt to apply
multiple moving video images to Aisaka. Rather, it is
Aisaka’s method of identification of areas within an image
that is being applied to a different type of image, viz.,
multiple moving video images.
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
10
Appellants further contend that changing the track being
displayed based on user input as taught by Preston does not
teach or suggest combining the location selection of Aisaka
with the video icons of Tonomura. However, as the examiner
points out, at pages 4-5 of the answer, it is not the changing
of the track in Preston that is important to the instant
rejection but, rather, Preston is used to teach pointer
selection of pixels within a moving image, a teaching which,
when combined with Aisaka’s teaching of picking still image
positions with a pointer and Tonomura’s teaching of displaying
multiple selectable live-motion image regions, results in the
claimed subject matter.
It appears that appellants’ arguments are nothing more
than arguments against each reference individually as to the
deficiency of that reference. However, one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where
the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
We do not contend that there is no argument that could be
made to overcome the examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness of the subject matter of claims 1 through 39.
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
11
But, if there is such an argument, we merely hold that
appellants have not made
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
12
it. Accordingly, since, in our view, the prima facie case of
obviousness has not been successfully rebutted, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
We reach an opposite result with regard to the rejection
of claims 40 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, with
regard to these claims, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness.
With regard to claim 40, which requires decompressing a
region of the item buffer surrounding the pixel location
wherein the region of the item buffer “is smaller than said
item buffer,” the examiner contends that the decompression may
be construed, broadly, to cover the entire item buffer which
certainly includes the region of said item buffer surrounding
said pixel location. The examiner’s reasoning is misplaced
because claim 40 explicitly calls for the region to be
“smaller than said item buffer.” Accordingly, it is
unreasonable for the examiner to construe the decompression to
cover the entire item buffer.
With regard to claim 41, this claim recites identifying a
second area within the image selectable by a user and storing
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
13
a labeled pixel in a second labeled track in memory, that
second labeled track corresponding to the temporal track of
the set of related temporal tracks which contain the image.
Thus, as explained by appellants at page 13 of the principal
brief, multiple hit test tracks may correspond to a single
video track and a single video track is coordinated with two
separate user actions. The examiner explains [answer-pages 5-
6] that the language of claim 41 is so broad as to permit the
image of a temporal track containing a labeled pixel to refer
to a larger image context including a second area within the
image having a second labeled track. We, frankly, do not
understand the examiner’s reasoning in this regard and will
not sustain the rejection of claim 41. The examiner has
simply not shown where, in the applied references, it is
taught or suggested to identify a second area within the image
which could be selected by the user, label each pixel within
the second area with a second identifier unique to the second
area and then store each labeled pixel in the second labeled
track in the memory wherein the second labeled track
corresponds to the temporal track of the set of related
temporal tracks which contains the image.
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
14
Finally, with regard to claim 42, this claim requires the
first labeled track to contain a labeled pixel corresponding
to both an image of the first temporal track and an image of a
third temporal track of the set of related temporal tracks,
permitting, as explained by appellants at page 15 of the
principal brief, different temporal tracks of data with
similar objects or areas to share the same hit test track as
for use in scenes which include the same objects such as a
scene in the daytime and the same scene at nighttime. The
examiner again contends that the claim language is so broad,
because of the term “corresponding,” as to permit an
interpretation in which the “labeled track,” applied to one of
Tonomura’s video icons, with selectable regions as per Aisaka
and Preston, “corresponds” to the remainder of the coded
“image” having hit test track regions. We do not understand
how a video icon of Tonomura “corresponds” to “both an image
of said temporal track and an image of a third temporal
track,” as required by claim 42. We find nothing within the
applied references that suggests different temporal tracks of
data with similar objects may share the same test track as in
claim 42.
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
15
We have sustained the rejection of claims 1 through 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but we have not sustained the rejection
of claims 40 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
16
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK:hh
Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
17
Allan T. Sponseller
Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman
12400 Wilshire Boulevard, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025