Ex Parte SathishDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 201813440001 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/440,001 04/05/2012 10949 7590 04/02/2018 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sailesh Kumar Sathish 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. 042933/454441 6416 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, NIGAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2018 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): usptomail@alston.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAILESH KUMAR SATHISH Appeal2017-007592 Application 13/440,001 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, IRVINE. BRANCH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to: [A] method comprises determining heuristic information for creating at least one media compilation, wherein the heuristic information is associated with at least one directing user. The method also comprises determining a selection of the heuristic information by at least one end user. The method further comprises processing and/or facilitating a processing of the heuristic information to cause, at least in part, a creation of the at Appeal2017-007592 Application 13/440,001 least one media compilation based, at least in part, on one or more media items associated with the at least one end user. Specification, paragraph 3. Heuristic information may take many forms. In one scenario, heuristic information may include direction such as, switch to a second camera angle on the second beat of an audio file or given time stamp. Heuristic information may also pertain to how transitions take place or special effects for the transitions. Furthermore, heuristic information may relate to significant events in media clips. For instance, various sensors such as maturation data, gyroscope data, photo editing data, may indicate if one or more significant events took place within a frame. This may be indicated by a significant change in magnetometer data simultaneously by a significant number of users in crowdsourced media. Heuristic information may dictate how much of the clip to include in a media compilation, or the duration of the clip. Metadata may also detect parameters such as lighting, where heuristic information may call for one or more frames to be included or excluded in compilations due to lighting specifications. Other heuristic information may inform editing by designating rules around directing such as panning speed or timing, how much of frames or significant events to accommodate, quantity of tilt, etc. In some scenarios, setting parameter values or ranges may involve only metadata. Specification, paragraph 29. Illustrative Claim 1. A method comprising: determining heuristic information for creating at least one media compilation, wherein the heuristic information is associated with at least one directing user and indicates media editing parameters; categorizing the heuristic information according to one or more criteria of the at least one media compilation; causing presentation of the heuristic information for selection by at least one end user based on the one or more criteria; 2 Appeal2017-007592 Application 13/440,001 receiving an indication of a selection of the heuristic information by the at least one end user; and processing, by at least one processor, one or more media items associated with the at least one end user based on the media editing parameters indicated by the selected heuristic information to cause a creation of the at least one media compilation. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 14, 15, 17-20, and 49 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fiumi (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0315020 Al; published December 13, 2012) and Givoly (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0206351 Al; published August 25, 2011). Final Action 6-22. Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fiumi and Givoly. Final Action 22. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 13, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed April 24, 2017), the Answer (mailed February 24, 2017) and the Final Action (mailed July 25, 2016) for the respective details. Appellant contends the Examiner's obviousness rejection of the independent claims is erroneous because the cited references fail to teach or suggest "(b) 'categorizing the heuristic information according to one or more criteria of the at least one media compilation"' and "(c) 'causing presentation of the heuristic information for selection by at least one end user based on the one or more criteria"' as recited by the claims. Appeal Brief 8. 3 Appeal2017-007592 Application 13/440,001 The Examiner finds Fiumi discloses categorizing the heuristic information in paragraph 19 and discloses the presentation of the heuristic information in paragraphs 53 and 55: • categorizing the heuristic information according to one or more criteria of the at least one media compilation (in addition to discussion above, Based on the paragraph 0019, to create a media compilation (i.e., video files), video project having different criteria to choose.); • causing presentation of the heuristic information for selection by at least one end user based on the one or more criteria (in addition to discussion above, paragraph 0053, 0055 teaches "At block 304, the project management module 212 selects workers to distribute video frames to based at least partly on performance ratings of the workers. In one embodiment, the project management module 212 assigns workers to a project based on their rating." paragraph 0053 teaches selection of heuristic information based on the criteria.). Final Action 8. The Examiner further finds: Based on [Fiumi's] paragraph 0019, 1 to create a media compilation (i.e., video files), video project having different criteria to choose. Moreover, paragraph 0053, 0055 teaches "At block 304, the project management module 212 selects workers to distribute video frames to based at least partly on performance ratings of the workers. In one embodiment, the project management module 212 assigns workers to a project based on their rating. " [sic] paragraph 0053 teaches selection of heuristic information based on the criteria. 1 "The projects 102 may be in the form of instructions and associated digital files, such as video files (which may include audio tracks), received over a network from a customer computer system and then stored in an adaptive workflow system data store." Fiumi, paragraph 19. 4 Appeal2017-007592 Application 13/440,001 Answer22. Fimni discloses in paragraph 17: The adaptive workflow system can be used to implement digital video processing projects, such as two-dimensional to three-dimensional conversion projects, digital restoration, color adjustment, or the like. The features of the adaptive workflow system can also be implemented for other types of projects, including projects unrelated to video processing. Fiumi's workflow system assigns new projects to members of a distributed workforce. Fiumi, paragraph 19. The claimed invention provides heuristic information for the user to employ to edit, manipulate and create one media compilation. See claim 1. While we see the similarities wherein Fiumi and the claimed invention both involve working with media, the similarities end there for patentability indications. Appellant contends: There is simply no suggestion that a method, computer program product, and apparatus of Fiumi categorize the heuristic information according to one or more criteria of the at least one media compilation, as claimed. [N]or is there any such suggestion in Fiumi of categorizing the heuristic information (e.g., workforce criteria, according to the Office Action). Further to this point, there is certainly no disclosure or suggestion of categorizing the heuristic information according to one or more criteria of the at least one media compilation. Therefore, Applicant submits that Fiumi fails to teach or suggest feature (b) of the independent claims. Givoly is not cited for disclosing the feature, and Applicant submits Givoly fails in this regard. Therefore, even in combination, Fiumi and Givoly do not teach or suggest the claimed feature. Appeal Brief 9. 5 Appeal2017-007592 Application 13/440,001 We find Appellant's arguments persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner has not adequately explained how Fiumi' s workflow system assigning new projects to members of a distributed workforce teaches or suggests claim 1 's "categorizing the heuristic information according to one or more criteria of the at least one media compilation." Accordingly, on this record we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 11, and 49 commensurate in scope, as well as dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20. DECISION The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20, and 49 are reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation