Ex Parte Sathish

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13440001 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

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