Ex Parte Rakshit et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

13270074 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/270,074
79336 7590
Law Offices (Austin)
24 Roy St #447
Seattle, WA 98109
10/10/2011
08/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sarbajit K. Rakshit
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.
AUS920110161US1 4349
EXAMINER
TRAN,LOIH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
mike@dryjapat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SARBAJIT K. RAKSHIT, THOMAS S. MAZZEO, and
BARRY A. KRITT
Appeal2015-000315
Application 13/270,074
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000315
Application 13/270,074
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to techniques for locating particular
portions or scenes in a video using a graphical diagram with elements
corresponding to objects that appear in one or more portions of a video.
Spec. ,-r 18.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a video divided into a plurality
of portions, the video having a plurality of objects, each object
appearing in one or more of the portions;
generating, by the processor, a graphical diagram having a
plurality of graphical elements corresponding to the objects, each
graphical element having a size corresponding to a number
and/or size of the portions in which the object to which the
graphical element corresponds appears, the graphical elements
having locations within the graphical diagram in correspondence
with relationships of appearance of the objects within the
portions; and,
displaying, by the processor, the graphical diagram on a
display device.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
over Hatori (US 5,778,382, issued July 7, 1998).
2. Claims 2 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hatori and Szabo (US 6,326,962 Bl, issued Dec. 4, 2001).
3. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hatori and Musgrove (US 2009/0204608 Al, published
Aug. 13, 2009).
2
Appeal2015-000315
Application 13/270,074
4. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hatori and Robson (US 2009/0049467, XX).
5. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hatori, Robson, and Honda (US 2002/0028012 Al,
published Mar. 7, 2002).
6. Claims 6, 7, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hatori and Johnson (US 2011/0103773 Al, published
May 5, 2011).
7. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hatori and Hosogai (US 2008/0276199 Al, published
Nov. 6, 2008).
8. Claims 13-16 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hatori, Johnson, and Szabo.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Hatori discloses "a video divided into a plurality
of portions, the video having a plurality of objects ... [and] generating ... a
graphical diagram having a plurality of graphical elements corresponding to
the objects, each graphical element having a size corresponding to a number
and/or size of the portions in which the object to which the graphical
element corresponds appears," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. In
particular, the Examiner finds the claimed "plurality of [video] portions"
correspond to Hatori's "display areas 301and302." Ans. 21; see Hatori Fig.
6. The Examiner further finds the claimed "plurality of objects" appearing
in the video portions correspond to Hatori' s image files, such as model.jpg,
man.jpg, bus.jpg, and plane.tif depicted in Figure 6 of Hatori. Ans. 20-21.
3
Appeal2015-000315
Application 13/270,074
Appellants argue Hatori "simply does not disclose division of a video
into portions, where each object of the video appears in one or more
portions." App. Br. 5. Instead, according to Appellants, "Hatori discloses
objects that are separate image files. For instance, in FIG. 6, Hatori shows
image files including 'bus.jpg,' 'bike.jpg,' and 'man.jpg.' These are not
objects that appear in a video, but rather are separate image files." Id.
Addressing the display areas of Figure 6, Appellants argue "'[p]erson' and
'vehicle' in Hatori are not portions of a video; rather, they are keywords."
Reply Br. 3.
Appellants further argue Hatori does not disclose "graphical
element[s] having a size corresponding to a number and/or size of the
[video] portions in which the object to which the graphical element
corresponds appears," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5. Addressing
Hatori's image files, Appellants argue "Hatori discloses objects that all have
the exact same size." Addressing Hatori' s display areas, Appellants argue
"[t]he size of each display area 301 and 302 is in correspondence with the
number of icons that match its corresponding keyword" not to the number or
size of the portions in which the object appear.
We agree with Appellants' arguments. Specifically, we agree that
neither the display areas 301 and 302, nor the image files included in the
display areas (bus.jpg, bike.jpg, and man.jpg. etc.) are portions of video.
The display areas are simply areas where icons representing results of a
keyword search are displayed, and the image files are separate image files,
not portions of a video. Hatori Fig. 6; 4:3-5:34. Further, we agree that the
size of display areas 301 and 302 do not correspond to the "number and/or
size of the portions in which the object to which the graphical element
4
Appeal2015-000315
Application 13/270,074
corresponds appears" and instead corresponds to the number of icons
returned in the keyword search. To the extent the Examiner is relying on
Hatori' s image files as satisfying this limitation, rather than the display
areas, we agree with Appellants that the size of the image files also does not
correspond to the number and/or size of the portions in which the objects
appear and instead remain the same size throughout Hatori' s disclosure.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1. For the same reasons we also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 12 and 1 7, which contain
substantially the same limitations and were rejected on substantially the
same basis. See Final Act. 4, 14, and 15. Because these constitute all
pending independent claims, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of any pending dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
REVERSED
5