Ex Parte Oisel et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 28, 201110528636 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2011) Copy Citation 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. 10/528,636 03/22/2005 Lionel Oisel PF020128 7137 24498 7590 02/28/2011 Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC P.O. Box 5312 Princeton, NJ 08543-5312 EXAMINER BLACK, LINH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2011 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte LIONEL OISEL, BERTRAND CHUPEAU, and FRANCOIS LE CLERC ____________ Appeal 2009-009929 Application 10/528,6361 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 1 Appellants list Application No. 10/528,636 on page 1 of the Appeal Brief but also has Application No. 10/877,581 in the Brief’s header (see Br. 2-17) and discusses the real party for Application No. 10/428,973 (see Br. 3). Based on the issues presented, we will assume that this appeal relates to Application No. 10/528,636 which has corresponding claims. 2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-009929 Application 10/528,636 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 6. The Examiner indicates that claims 4 and 5 contain allowable subject matter. Ans. 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention involves clustering key images using spatial and temporal attributes. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below with a key limitation emphasized: 1. Method of clustering images of a video sequence consisting of shots and represented by a graph-like structure, a node of the graph representing a shot or a class of shots defined by key images and the nodes being connected by edges, comprising the following iteration: selecting an edge ak connecting nodes ni and nj[,] calculating a potential of node nm, merging of the two nodes ni and nj, as a function of the distances between the attributes of the key images defining the class of shots of node ni and those of the key images defining the class of shots of node nj and as a function of the temporal distance of these key images, calculating a potential of each edge connecting the merged node to another node of the graph previously connected to nodes ni or nj, as a function of the distances between the attributes of the key images defining the class of shots of the merged node and those of the key images defining the class of shots of the other node and as a function of the temporal distance between these key images, the new class of shots associated with the merged node comprising the key images of the classes of shots of the merged nodes, and merging of the two nodes and validation of the new graph if an energy of this graph, which is the sum of the potentials of the nodes and of the edges, is less than the energy of the graph before merging. Appeal 2009-009929 Application 10/528,636 3 The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Yeo US 5,821,945 Oct. 13, 1998 Oguz US 7,054,367 B2 May 30, 2006 (filed Dec. 31, 2001) Geiger US 7,212,201 B1 May 1, 2007 (filed Sept. 20, 2000) THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yeo, Oguz, and Geiger. Ans. 3-7.4 THE CONTENTIONS Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yeo teaches merging nodes ni and nj as a function of the distances between the key images’ attributes defining the class of shots for nodes ni and nj but fails to discuss additionally merging these nodes as function of the key images’ temporal distance. Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on Oguz to teach this missing limitation. Ans. 4-5. 3 The Examiner states “claims 1-2 and 3-6” are rejected under § 103. Ans. 3. However, the Examiner only discusses claims 1-3 and 6 in the body of the rejection (Ans. 3-7) and also indicates that claims 4 and 5 are allowable if rewritten in independent form (Ans. 7). We therefore presume—as do Appellants (Br. 5)—that the Examiner intended to reject only claims 1-3 and 6 and only address arguments thereto. 4 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed November 17, 2008, and (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 26, 2009. Appeal 2009-009929 Application 10/528,636 4 Appellants argue that Yeo does not suggest a temporal distance or merging nodes according to potentials which are function of temporal distances. See Br. 11. Appellants also contend that Oguz does not discuss a temporal distance relating to key images (Br. 9), and that the claim includes merging nodes as a function of this temporal distance (see Br. 10). The issue before us, then, is as follows: ISSUE (1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Yeo, Oguz, and Geiger collectively would have taught or suggested merging node ni and nj as a function of the temporal distance of key images that define ni and nj’s class shots? FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) 1. Yeo discloses video shots that exhibit visual, spatial, and temporal similarities are clustered into scenes, where each scene contains one or more shots of similar content. Using the clustering results and temporal information associated with each shot, the system builds a graph with nodes representing scenes and edges representing the story’s progress from one scene to the next. Yeo, col. 5, ll. 32-40. 2. In the context of clustering video shots, Yeo measures shot similarities or a proximity index based on image attributes, such as color, spatial correlation, and shape. Yeo describes first grouping shots that are Appeal 2009-009929 Application 10/528,636 5 most similar together, and then grouping other shots by their proximity values. Yeo, col. 6, ll. 26-31; col. 8, ll. 44-62; col. 9, ll. 4-13. 3. Yeo also discusses temporal variations in video shots when camera motions are prominent (e.g., first shot zooms in to Mr. A and a second shot zooms out to Ms. B). In this case, a representative image is not sufficient to analyze this image set it represents. Yeo explains the system chooses a greatly reduced representative set of frames to represent a video shot so as to reduce computing loads. Yeo also states that clustering is not confined to only one such representative image. Yeo, col. 8, ll. 9-41. 4. Yeo provides two examples of a hierarchical organization of shots. Example 1 is a tree representation of shots in time and has a temporal relation defined by an edge. Example 2 is a directed graph representation of shots that has cluster relations governed by a temporal ordering of shots within two clusters. Yeo also discusses the edge relationships induced by temporal precedence at level 0 is preserved as one moves up the hierarchy. Yeo, column 4, ll. 1-58. 5. Oguz teaches detecting a scene change in a video sequence by computing a coincidence coefficient that indicates the degree of coincidence between significant video frame edges in a current frame and a prior frame to within a distance of a small number of blocks. The number of blocks can be determined based on the temporal distance between the current and prior frames and the motion in the scene in that temporal vicinity. See Oguz, col. 6, ll. 7-35; col. 8, ll. 8-32; Fig. 2. Appeal 2009-009929 Application 10/528,636 6 ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent part, merging nodes as a function of the temporal distance of key images that define nodes ni and nj’s class shots. As the Examiner acknowledges (Ans. 13-14), Yeo discusses using temporal information when representing shots graphically. Yeo also clusters or merges nodes (e.g., a node representing a shot) based on temporal similarities. See FF 1. Yeo, however, provides no more details regarding these “temporal similarities,” but only describes measuring shot similarities based on image attributes, such as color, spatial correlation, and shape. See FF 2. Also, while Yeo discusses temporal variations (see FF 3), this temporal variation relates to selecting a representative frame set for a shot to reduce computations—not a temporal distance of these representative frames for clustering purposes. See id. The Examiner also cites to Yeo’s discussion (see Ans. 13-14) of hierarchical shot organizations and discusses edge relationships induced by a temporal precedence. See FF 4. However, this temporal precedence does not address a temporal distance of key images, let alone how this precedence is used to cluster or merge nodes as claim 1 requires. Yeo discloses a hierarchical tree presentation has a temporal relation defined by an edge. See id. This temporal relation relates to edges and not a node’s key, and thus does not teach merging nodes based on this temporal relationship. See id. Yeo also discusses a directed graph representation of shots that include Appeal 2009-009929 Application 10/528,636 7 cluster (e.g., nodes) relations governed by a temporal ordering of shots within two clusters. See id. While Yeo temporal shot ordering within a node (e.g., a cluster) governs node relationships, Yeo does not teach or suggest this temporal ordering is a temporal distance of key images or that the nodes (e.g., clusters) merged as a function of the temporal ordering. We therefore disagree with the Examiner’s assertion that Yeo’s temporal ordering of shots “seems to [be] equivalent to ‘the ordering of shots’ temporal values/distance.” Ans. 14. On the other hand, Oguz detects a scene change (e.g., detecting edges between scenes or nodes) by computing a coincidence coefficient. See FF 1, 5. Specifically, the coincidence coefficient indicates the coincidences between significant edges in a current frame and in a prior frame to within a distance of a small number of blocks, and the blocks are determined using a temporal distance between the current and prior frames. See id. Thus, because Oguz’s coincidence coefficient considers the blocks’ distance and the block distance is determined using a temporal distance between frames, the temporal distance is also a component used to compute a coincidence coefficient. See id. Additionally, Appellants admit as much. See Br. 10 (second emphasis added) (“the disclosed temporal distance in Oguz . . . is used to scale motion . . . and to compute a coincidence coefficient”). Nonetheless, Oguz only teaches using this temporal distance to detect when a scene changes. See FF 5. Thus, at best, Oguz suggests calculating a potential of an edge (e.g., where a scene representing a shot class changes) Appeal 2009-009929 Application 10/528,636 8 as a function of a temporal distance. We fail to see how this teaching further teaches merging nodes (e.g., shots or scenes) as a function of this temporal distance as recited in claim 1. Nor has the Examiner provided adequate evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Oguz’s ability to detect scene changes based, in part, on a temporal distance also suggests clustering or merging nodes as a function of this key image distance. See Ans. 4-5. The Examiner states Oguz’s system allows for “different categorization/clustering method[s].” Ans. 5. Even so, we do not find that Oguz teaches or suggests clustering or merging nodes based on the recited temporal distance is known in the art and thus that merging nodes as a function of a temporal distance of key images that define node ni and nj’s class shots as required by claim 1. See Ans. 14. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the obviousness rejection of: (1) independent claim 1 and (2) dependent claims 2, 3, and 6 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 6 under § 103. Appeal 2009-009929 Application 10/528,636 9 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 6 is reversed. REVERSED rwk Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC P.O. Box 5312 Princeton, NJ 08543-5312 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation