Ex Parte Newell et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 201411097951 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARTIN E. NEWELL and LUBOMIR D. BOURDEV ____________________ Appeal 2011-008709 Application 11/097,951 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008709 Application 11/097,951 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 36-55. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to extraction and scaled display of objects in an image. Claim 36, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 36. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an image that includes first and second faces; detecting the first face in the image; detecting the second face in the image, the detecting of the second face being performed using a processor of a machine; extracting a first part of the image that includes the first face, the second face being absent from the first part; extracting a second part of the image that includes the second face, the first face being absent from the second part; and displaying the first and second parts contemporaneously with the image by using a display, the first and second parts being displayed outside the image on the display. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Haynes US 2005/0129311 Al Jun. 16, 2005 (filed Dec. 8, 2004) Appeal 2011-008709 Application 11/097,951 3 Aratani US 2005/0128221 Al Jun. 16, 2005 (filed Dec. 3, 2004) Porter US 2006/0072811 Al Apr. 6, 2006 (filed Nov. 28, 2003) Sakuramoto US 7,072,526 B2 Jul. 4, 2006 (filed Nov. 13, 2001) REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 36-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Porter in view of Haynes and Sakuramoto. (Ans. 3). Claims 36-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aratani in view of Porter and Haynes. (Ans. 24). ANALYSIS With respect to the Examiner's first obviousness rejection of independent claim 36, 46, and 51, Appellants argue these claims as a single group. Therefore, we select independent claim 36 as the representative claim for the grouping and will address Appellants’ arguments thereto. (App. Br. 12). Appellants contend representative independent claim 36 recites "displaying the first and second parts contemporaneously with the image by using a display, the first and second parts being displayed outside the image on the display." (App. Br. 12). Appellants contend "the alleged disclosure fails to encompass the entire claim element in question." (App. Br. 12). Appeal 2011-008709 Application 11/097,951 4 Appellants contend: three things are being displayed contemporaneously on the display. The image is being displayed; the first part of the image is being contemporaneously displayed with the image and outside the image; and the second part of the image is being contemporaneously displayed with the image and outside the image. The first and second parts are parts of the same image, and the first and second parts are displayed outside that same image on the display. Nothing in Porter, including the cited portions of Porter, makes any mention of this claim element. (App. Br. 12-13; fn. omitted). Appellants additionally contend "[d]ifferent picture stamps are therefore from different video shots and indicate different content. As a result, mere discussion of the picture stamps of Porter does not disclose first and second parts of the same image." (App. Br. 13). While we agree with Appellants that different picture stamps come from different video shots, we find that the Porter reference discloses some frames include multiple faces A and B. (Porter para. 233) (Ans. 9). We find a frame of a video shot to be a video image. Additionally, we find that the Porter reference discloses the clip icons which include the face that "provide a hyperlink so that the user may click on one of the icons 910 which would then cause the corresponding clip to be played in the viewer area 900." (Porter para. 259). We find that when the hyperlink is activated and the video is replayed, there is a time when three things are being displayed contemporaneously on the display, as Appellants have discussed. (App. Br. 14). Appellants discuss Figures 19a, 19b, and 20 and contend these figures of Porter fail "to disclose displaying first and second parts of an image Appeal 2011-008709 Application 11/097,951 5 contemporaneously with the image, where the first and second parts are displayed outside the image." (App. Br. 14). Appellants contend the mere discussion of a clip being played in a viewer area says "nothing about displaying first and second parts of an image contemporaneously with the image, where the first and second parts are displayed outside the image." (App. Br. 14). We disagree with Appellants, as discussed above. Appellants further contend the discussion in the Porter reference regarding picture stamps does not disclose first and second parts of the same image. (App. Br. 14). Again, we disagree with Appellants and find that the picture stamps 840 show two faces which would be included on the timeline 920 in figure 20 “‘timeline’ 920 including representations of edited video shots 930, each shot optionally containing a picture stamp 940 indicative of the content of that shot." (Porter para. 252). Therefore, Appellants’ arguments do not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 36, and we sustain the rejection of claim 36 and independent claims 46, and 51 grouped therewith along with their respective dependent claims not separately argued. With respect to the Examiner's second obviousness rejection of independent claim 36, 46, and 51, Appellants argue these claims as a single group. Therefore, we select independent claim 36 as the representative claim for the grouping and will address Appellants’ arguments thereto. (App. Br. 17). Appellants additionally discuss the Aratani reference and maintain that the final office action relies upon Figures 29-30 of Porter. (App. Br. 19). We find the Examiner additionally relies upon Figures 19-21 at pages 36-39 of the final rejection (Ans. 37-40) which is the same portion relied Appeal 2011-008709 Application 11/097,951 6 upon as discussed above. Appellants present the same contentions as discussed above with respect to the Porter reference. Therefore, Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's reasoned conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 36, and we sustain the rejection of claim 36 and independent claims 46, and 51 grouped therewith along with their respective dependent claims not separately argued. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 36-55 based upon obviousness, either as being unpatentable over Porter in view of Haynes and Sakuramoto, or as being unpatentable over Aratani in view of Porter and Haynes. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 36-55 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation