Ex Parte Pea et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 1, 2010

10331775 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 1, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROY D. PEA, MICHAEL I. MILLS, ERIC HOFFERT,
JOSEPH H. ROSEN, and KENNETH DAUBER
____________

Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: February 2, 2010
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a method for interactive authoring and sharing
of visual data. The visual data includes motion video, still,
simulated/animated, panoramic, and live imagery. The author can
annotate video frames and store the annotations as records. By repeating
this process, the author creates stored traversals from different visual
sources.1
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. An interactive, electronic method of sharing user
perspectives on visual data, the method comprising:
publishing a web page comprising a listing of one or more
traversal records and one or more associated annotations, each of the
traversals comprising a time-based sequence of frames, each frame
being a spatial subset of the visual data such that each of the
traversals comprises a set of cropped space and time selections from
said visual data;
playing back, for a user, a selected one of the traversals in
response to the user browsing the web page and interactively selecting
said record; and
adding to the annotations on the web page in response to said
user browsing the web page and interactively submitting an addition.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Purnaveja US 6,006,241 Dec. 21, 1999
Yoon US 2004/0059584 A1 Mar. 25, 2004
(filed Sept. 25, 2002)

1 See generally Spec. 1-2; Fig. 5.
Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

3

1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-26 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Purnaveja. Ans. 3-6.2
2. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Purnaveja and Yoon. Ans. 6-7.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER PURNAVEJA
We discuss each rejected claim because Appellants argue each
claim.

Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Purnaveja discloses all the limitations of
claim 1. Ans. 3-4. In particular, the Examiner states that Purnaveja
discloses a capture module that captures a video stream having frames
with time stamps. Ans. 4, 8, and 9. This captured video stream, in the
Examiner’s view, is a set of cropped space (e.g., data component) and
time (e.g., time stamp) selections from the original visual data. Ans. 4, 7,
and 8. Using Purnaveja’s author module, the Examiner contends,
streams are annotated by selecting frames of the original data with
appropriate time stamps or a spatial subset of the visual data that is
cropped in space and time. Ans. 8-9.
Appellants argue that Purnaveja fails to teach that each frame of a
traversal is a spatial subset of visual data such that the traversal
comprises a set of cropped space and time selections from the visual data.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed January
26, 2007 and (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 14, 2007.
Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

4
Br. 4-7. Particularly, Appellants argue that Purnaveja discloses frames
that are a temporal rather than a spatial subset of data, and that the
capture module only captures video streams with temporal pointers (e.g.,
Figure 5)—not a spatial subset of visual data. Br. 5-8. Appellants further
contend that a frame is understood in the art to be still images of a
moving picture or video and cannot be interpreted as a spatial subset of
visual data. Br. 7-8. Appellants also assert that Purnaveja does not
disclose or teach traversals that are a set of cropped space and time
selections from the visual data. Br. 5 and 8.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 102, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 by finding that Purnaveja discloses publishing a web
page comprising a list of traversal records, each traversal comprising:
(1) a time-based sequence of frames and each frame being a spatial
subset of the visual data; and
(2) a set of cropped space and time selections from the visual data?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:

Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

5
Appellants’ Disclosure
1. The Specification states that the interactive session of “selecting
from the visual data a set of cropped space and time selections, and
marking these in the workspace” is referred to as a “traversal.” Spec.
7:16-19.
2. According to the Specification, “‘visual data’ generally includes
any manner of digital image data, including motion video, still imagery,
simulated or animated imagery, panoramic imagery, and live imagery, all
with or without an accompanying audio channel.” Spec. 7:8-11.

Purnaveja
3. Purnaveja discloses a producer 215 that includes a capture
module 317 for capturing live video stream and an author module 318 for
generating annotated streams. The process involves capturing the
audio/video stream at step 410, composing a “LiveScreen” format at step
430, and generating an annotation stream at step 440. Col. 2, ll. 49-51
and col. 6, ll. 1-4 and 36-64; Figs. 3, 4A, and 6.
4. The video stream captured at capture module 317 can be from
various video sources, including video cameras, a video cassette recorder
(VCR), or digitized video files. Col. 5, ll. 58-61.
5. Purnaveja discloses that the video stream with a format 500
includes a series of frames (e.g., video frame 0 – N) where each frame
has a video component (e.g., Video Data 0 - N) and time component
(e.g., Time Stamp 0 - N). Col. 6, ll. 23-25; Fig. 5.

Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

6
6. Purnaveja discloses author tool 700 of author module 318 that
annotates captured video streams. For example, data annotation streams
include: (a) ticker annotation streams having ticker tape data embedded
with annotation stream, or (b) locator annotation streams have URL
addresses pointing to HTML pages. Col. 6, l. 49 – col. 7, l. 27; Fig. 7.
7. Purnaveja discloses that an embodiment of the author module
700 is a web page (e.g., demo.html – VXAuthor) having a video stream
(e.g, 500) to annotate displayed in video window 720. The author tool
700 includes selecting appropriate time stamps (e.g., time markers 751,
752, 753, 754, 791, 792, 793, and 794) from the video stream to generate
annotations streams. Col. 6, l. 65 – col. 7, l. 8, col. 7, ll. 29-44, and col.
8, ll. 2-5; Figs. 4B, 4C, 7, 8A, and 8B.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Appl. Dig. Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L.
Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and
Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

7
quotations omitted). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their
ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted).

ANALYSIS
We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1
which recites that each traversal is a time-based sequence of frames, each
frame being a spatial subset of a visual data. First, we discuss the term,
“traversal.” The Specification defines “traversal” as an interactive
session of “selecting from the visual data a set of cropped space and time
selections, and marking these in the workspace.” FF 1. This definition
of a traversal, however, is also explicitly recited in the limitations of
claim 1 as “each of the traversals comprises a set of cropped space and
time selections from said visual data.” We therefore find that the
definition of traversal in the Specification does not further limit the
construction of claim 1.
Also, the breadth of claim 1 does not limit the phrase “visual data.”
While the Specification discusses examples of “visual data” to include
any manner of digital image data, including motion video, still imagery,
simulated or animated imagery, panoramic imagery, and live imagery,
the Specification does not limit this phrase to only digital image data.
See FF 2 (explaining that visual data “generally” includes digital image
data). Thus, given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the
Specification, we find that “visual data” in claim 1 is not limited to the
examples provided in the Specification and encompasses other image
data types. Based on this construction, we turn to Purnaveja.
Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

8
Purnaveja discloses a producer 215 that includes a capture module
317 for capturing live video stream at step 410 and an author module 318
for generating annotated streams at steps 430 and 440. FF 3. The video
stream captured at capture module 317 can be from various video
sources, including video cameras, a VCR, or digitized video files. FF 4.
These video streams include a series of frames (e.g., video frame 0 – N)
in time or a time-based sequence of frames (e.g., as shown by time stamp
0 – N). FF 5. Moreover, a video stream includes spatial data or data
related to the visual space captured. Thus, each entirely-captured video
stream in Purnaveja can be viewed as spatial visual data, and selected
frames within this stream are a spatial subset of the entire visual data.
Moreover, because the claim does not further define “a spatial subset of
visual data,” nothing in the claim precludes one subset of the visual data
as reading on an entire frame. Additionally, as a video source only
captures a portion of its surrounding scene, the captured video stream
data and each frame in Purnaveja also represent a spatial subset of the
entire visual data in one’s field of view.
Appellants further contend Purnaveja fails to disclose the traversals
comprise a set of cropped space and time selections from the visual data.
Purnaveja discusses an author tool 700 that uses captured video streams
having frames that are spatial subsets of visual data, as explained above,
to create video streams or traversals having annotations (e.g., ticker tape
data embedded with annotation stream). FF 6. This author module
discloses publishing a web page (e.g., demo.html – VXAuthor) from
which the user can select a video stream (e.g., 500) or traversal that is
then displayed in a video window 720. FF 5 and 7. The author tool 700
Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

9
then allows the user to select desired time stamps (e.g., time markers 751
and 791) from the entire video stream (e.g., 500). Id. This selection of
time stamps associated with particular frames of the traversals includes
cropping time selections.
Moreover, selecting particular video frames using time markers,
instead of all video frames of the entire video stream, also crops the
traversal spatially. That is, as explained above, this annotated stream
does not include the entire stream of visual data and is, thus, a cropped
spatial selection of the visual data. We also note that claim 1 does not
recite cropping an image within a frame Thus, annotating a stream by
selecting particular frames within given time stamps fully meets the
recited cropped space selections from visual data recited in claim 1.
Therefore, we find that that Purnaveja discloses the limitation of “each
traversal comprising a time-based sequence of frames, each frame being a
spatial subset of the visual data such that each of the traversals comprise
a set of cropped space and time selections from said visual data” as
recited in claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1.

Claims 2-4 and 6-13
Appellants argue claims 2-4 and 6-13 separately. Br. 8-16.
However, the arguments for these claims are very similar. For example,
Appellants contend that since Purnaveja does not anticipate claim 1,
dependent claims 2-4 and 6-13 are also not anticipated by Purnaveja. See
Br. 8-16. We are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above in
Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

10
connection with claim 1. Additionally, Appellants argue that claims 2-13
do not teach the “the novel concept of a method of interactive, electronic
sharing of user perspective on visual data, where annotations are
associated with a time-based sequence of frames, each frame being a
spatial subset of the visual data such that each of the traversals comprises
a set of cropped space and time selections from visual data . . .”
(emphasis omitted), and that Purnaveja does not disclose this aspect of
the invention. See Br. 9-16. We are not persuaded by these arguments,
however, for the reasons previously discussed. Finally, Appellants recite
the claim language found in claims 2-4 and 6-13. See Br. 9-16. But a
statement that merely points out what a claim recites is not a separate
argument for patentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2-4 and 6-13.

Claim 14
Independent claim 14 recites an interactive, electronic apparatus
with means-plus-function limitations performing steps similar to those
recited in independent claim 1. Appellants repeat the arguments made in
connection with claim 1 for claim 14. Compare Br. 4-8 with Br. 16-20.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 14.

Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

11
Claims 15-17 and 19-26
Appellants argue claims 15-17 and 19-26 separately. Br. 20-28.
However, the arguments for these claims are very similar. For example,
Appellants contend that since Purnaveja does not anticipate claim 14,
dependent claims 15-26 are also not anticipated by Purnaveja. See Br.
20-28. We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the
reasons discussed above in connection with claim 14. Additionally,
Appellants argue that claims 15-17 and 19-26 do not teach the “the novel
concept of an apparatus for interactive, electronic sharing of user
perspective on visual data, where annotations are associated with a time-
based sequence of frames, each frame being a spatial subset of the visual
data such that each of the traversals comprises a set of cropped space and
time selections from visual data . . .” and that Purnaveja does not disclose
this aspect of the invention. (emphasis omitted). See Br. 21-28. We are
not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons previously
discussed. Finally, Appellants recite the claim language found in claims
15-17 and 19-26. See Br. 21-28. However, a statement that merely
points out what a claim recites is not a separate argument for
patentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 15-17 and 19-26.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PURNAVEJA AND YOON
Appellants separately argue the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 5 and 18. We therefore address each claim separately.

Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

12
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1. The Examiner finds that the
combination of Purnaveja and Yoon teaches or suggests all the
limitations recited in claim 5. Ans. 6-7. Appellants argue that neither
Purnaveja or Yoon, alone or in combination, teaches the limitation of
“each frame being a spatial subset of the visual data such that each of the
traversals comprises a set of cropped space and time selections from said
visual data” as recited in claim 1. Br. 28-29. Additionally, Appellants
contend that, for reasons set forth with regard to claim 1, neither
reference teaches these limitations. Br. 29. The issues are therefore the
same as those in connection with claim 1.
We disagree and refer Appellants to our previous discussion of
Purnaveja. We therefore need not address whether Yoon cures any
purported deficiency of Purnaveja failing to disclose that each frame is a
spatial subset of visual data or that each traversal comprises a set of
cropped space and time selections from the visual data as recited in claim
1.
We will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 5
for the reasons previously discussed.

Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 14. The Examiner finds that the
combination of Purnaveja and Yoon teaches or suggests all the
limitations recited in claim 14. Ans. 6-7. Appellants argue that neither
Purnaveja or Yoon, alone or in combination, teaches the limitation of
“each frame being a spatial subset of the visual data such that each of the
Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

13
traversals comprises a set of cropped space and time selections from said
visual data” as recited in claim 14. Br. 29-31. Additionally, Appellants
contend that, for reasons set forth regarding claim 14, neither reference
teaches these limitations. Br. 30-31. The issues are therefore the same as
those in connection with claim 14.
We disagree and refer Appellants to our previous discussion of
Purnaveja. We therefore need not address whether Yoon cures any
purported deficiency of Purnaveja failing to disclose that each frame is a
spatial subset of visual data or that each traversal comprises a set of
cropped space and time selections from the visual data as recited in claim
14.
We will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection for the
reasons previously discussed.

CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting: (1)
claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-26 under § 102, or (2) claims 5 and 18 under
§ 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-26 is affirmed.

Appeal 2008-005064
Application 10/331,775

14
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

pgc

WALL & TONG, LLP
595 SHREWSBURY AVE.
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702