Ex Parte Ren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

12827714 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/827,714 06/30/2010
48116 7590 06/20/2016
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yansong Ren
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.
LUTZ 201150US01ALU 5558
No. 80
EXAMINER
PEACH, POLINA G
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y ANSONG REN, F ANGZHE CHANG,
THOMAS L. WOOD, and JAMES ROBERT ENSOR
Appeal2014-008800
Application 12/82 7, 714
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, 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, 3-13, and 15-25. Claims 2 and 14
are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent USA
Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Apr. 20, 2014
("Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed June 4, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office
Action mailed Apr. 4, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed
June 30, 2010 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-008800
Application 12/82 7, 714
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
managing video content in the context of a video hosting site. Spec 1:3-5.
When video content is uploaded to a video hosting site for access by others,
one or more tags are assigned to that video content. Id. at 3:21-22. "A tag
is a keyword or term that is in some way descriptive of the content of the
video file" and "provides part of the video semantic information." Id. at
3 :22-24. According to Appellants, the video content is managed by taking
a given video file having at least one associated tag descriptive of the
content of the given video file; analyzing the semantic relationship of the at
least one associated tag to tags associated with a plurality of video files
stored in a video database; selecting a set of video files based on the
analysis; comparing the content of the given video file with the content of
the selected set of video files to determine the similarity (duplication) of the
content; and updating information regarding the similarity (duplication) of
video files in the video database based on the comparison. Id. at 2:2-11. By
using semantic information from tags to identify video files likely to have
similar content, video search results can be improved and archived content
can be organized. Id. at 2: 12-20.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 13, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of managing video content including:
taking a given video file having at least two tags
associated with the given video file which are descriptive of a
content of the given video file;
2
Appeal2014-008800
Application 12/82 7, 714
determining a semantic relationship between the two tags
associated with the given video file based on a probability of
the two tags co-occurring in association with a plurality of other
video files in a data store;
analyzing the two tags associated with the given video
file and the determined semantic relationship therebetween to
identify tags associated with other video files in the data store;
using a result of the analyzing to select a set of video
files from the plurality in the data store;
comparing the content of the given video file with that of
each video file in the selected set to determine a similarity
therebetween; and
using an outcome of the comparing to update information
concerning the similarity of video files in the data store.
Br. 11 (Claims App'x.).
Kender et al.
Ott, IV et al.
Grauman et al.
Thir11malai et al.
Evidence Considered
US 2007 /0005592 Al
US 2007 /0078832 Al
US 2007/0217676 Al
US 7,904,462 Bl
Examiner's Rejections
Jan.4,2007
Apr. 5, 2007
Sept. 20, 2007
l\1ar. 8, 2011
(1) Claims 1, 4, 12, 13, 16, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kender. Ans. 2-7.
(2) Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kender, Ott, and Thirumalai. Ans. 7-9.
(3) Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kender and Grauman. Ans. 9-11.
3
Appeal2014-008800
Application 12/82 7, 714
ISSUE
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether Kender discloses the disputed limitation: "comparing the content of
the given video file with that of each video file in the selected set to
determine a similarity therebetween" as recited in independent claim 1, and
similarly, claims 13 and 25. Br. 6-8.
ANALYSIS
With respect to claims 1, 13, and 25, the Examiner finds Kender
teaches all claimed limitations including the disputed limitation: "comparing
the content of the given video file with that of each video file in the selected
set to determine a similarity therebetween." Ans. 3 (citing Kender i-fi-155,
63---65).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding this
"comparison" feature. In particular, Appellants argue the cited paragraphs
of Kender only disclose comparing "annotations" and not "comparing the
actual content of any one video file to the actual content of any other video
file as claimed." Br. 7. According to Appellants, "annotation 18 of Kender
may be akin to the claimed tag" and "may arguably describe the content of a
video." Id. However, Appellants argue these "annotations 18 ofKender are
NOT video frames or video data" and "are NOT in fact the actual content of
the video" and, as such, "Kender does NOT disclose comparing the content
of one video file to the content of another video file as claimed." Id. at 7-8
(emphasis in original).
Appellants' arguments are, however, misplaced. We find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments
4
Appeal2014-008800
Application 12/82 7, 714
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 11-14. As such, we adopt
the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For
additional emphasis, we note that the term "annotations" as disclosed by
Kender is used in the same manner as the term "tag" as disclosed by
Appellants, i.e., both are "keywords" or "terms" that are descriptive of the
content of the video file. See Spec. 3:22-24; Kender i-fi-16, 38; Abstract.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Kender also teaches a content level
evaluation performed by content level system 52, shown in Figures 1 and 3,
and that video content 56 is evaluated (compared) with other content that is
related (e.g., similar to) thereto. Ans. 12 (citing Kender i-fi-155, 63---65).
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 13, and 25 and their dependent claims 3-12 and 15-24,
which Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 9.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1, 3-13, and 15-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
§ 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1,
3-13, and 15-25.
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
Appeal2014-008800
Application 12/82 7, 714
AFFIRMED
6