Ex Parte Poupel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

12736083 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121736,083 12/10/2010
30594 7590 05/25/2016
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Olivier Poupel
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.
29250P-000104/US/NP 1250
EXAMINER
WERNER, DAVID N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
pshaddin@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVIER POUPEL, MARIN OSMOND, STEPHANE SAADA,
STEPHANE DUFOSSE, VALENTIN LEFEVRE, and NICOLAS LIVET
Appeal2014-005509
Application 12/736,083
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10, which are all the claims pending
in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005509
Application 12/736,083
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to displaying enhanced video on
mobile terminals. Spec. 1 :3--4.
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added):
1. A method of displaying, on a communicating
mobile terminal equipped with a camera, an
enhanced video having a real filmed scene within
which are embedded additional visual elements
connected with said scene, the method comprising:
establishing a media session between the
mobile terminal and a remote communication
system;
filming, by means of the camera, a non-
enhanced video having said real filmed scene;
transmitting, by the mobile terminal, the non-
enhanced video, in real time, to the communication
system;
receiving, at the communication system, the
non-enhanced video;
analyzing, at the communication system, in
real-time the filmed scene;
selecting, at the communication system, from
within a database, one or more additional media
objects related to the filmed scene;
associating, at the communication system, at
least one interactive functionality that may be
activated from the terminal with at least one object
from among said additional media objects;
adding at the communication system, the one
or more additional media objects thereby selected to
2
Appeal2014-005509
Application 12/736,083
the non-enhanced video, m order to form an
enhanced video;
transmitting, by the communication system,
the enhanced video, in real time, to the mobile
terminal;
displaying, at the mobile terminal, the
enhanced video;
transmitting, by the mobile terminal, a
command directly entered, manually via a keyboard
or audibly via a microphone, into the terminal by
the user to activate one of the one or more additional
media objects with which the at least one interactive
functionality is associated;
receiving, at the communication system, said
command;
analyzing, at the communication system, the
command;
[L 1] retrie-ving, by the communication
system, interactive media associated with the
activated one of the additional media objects, in
accordance with the command entered manually or
audibly by the user;
transmitting, by the communication system,
the retrieved interactive media associated with the
activated additional media objects, in real time, to
the terminal; and
displaying, at the terminal, the retrieved
interactive media in real time.
3
Appeal2014-005509
Application 12/736,083
The Rejections
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gausemeier
et al., "Development of a Real Time Image Based Object Recognition
Method for Mobile AR-Devices," Proc. of the 2nd Int'l Conf. on Computer
Graphics, Virtual Reality, and Visualization in Africa (AFRIGRAPH '03)
133-139 (Feb. 2003), Dempski (WO 03/034397 Al; Apr. 24, 2003), and
Cha et al., "Haptic Interaction in Realistic Multimedia Broadcasting," 3333
Lecture Notes in Computer Processing 482--490 (2004).
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gausemeier,
Dempski, Cha, and Spangler et al. "Using Data Mining to Profile TV
Viewers," Comm. of the ACM vol. 46, 66-72 (2003).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Dempski, Gausemeier, and Chu, collectively,
as teaching or suggesting limitation LI. More particularly, the Examiner
finds Dempski teaches or suggests retrieving, in response to a command,
media associated with media objects (Final Act. 6-7), Gausemeier teaches or
suggests manually entering such a command (id. at 4), and Chu teaches or
suggests the retrieved media being interactive (id. at 7-8).
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because
"Dempski discloses selecting an object by a 'sustained stare or gaze at an
object' and because the activation by the pen in Gausemeier does not result
in retrieval from a server of media associated with the activated media
object." App. Br. 19-20. Appellants further assert, "Gausemeier necessarily
does not disclose transmitting a command to the terminal to activate the
media object." Reply Br. 4.
4
Appeal2014-005509
Application 12/736,083
We have considered the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and the Examiner's Answer
thereto. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Rather, we agree
with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons set forth in
the Final Action and the Answer. We further emphasize the following.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they amount simply
to arguing the cited references individually, without considering the
collective teachings of the references as a whole. Where, as here, a rejection
is based on a combination of references, one cannot show non-obviousness
by attacking references individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner cites Gausemeier-not
Dempski-as teaching or suggesting the command entered manually. Final
Act. 4. Similarly, the Examiner cites Dempski-not Gausemeier -as
teaching or suggesting the claimed transmission of a command and retrieval
of media associated with the activated media object. Final Act. 6-7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claim 1. Appellants present no further arguments on claims
2-10. App. Br. 20-21. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10.
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).
5
Appeal2014-005509
Application 12/736,083
AFFIRMED
6