Ex Parte Sathish et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 22, 201713627723 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/627,723 09/26/2012 Sailesh Kumar Sathish 042933/454449 9040 10949 7590 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 EXAMINER HUANG, FRANK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/24/2017 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): u sptomail @ 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 and IGOR DANILO DIEGO CURCIO1 Appeal 2016-004962 Application 13/627,723 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 9—17, 19, and 20, all pending claims of the application.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies Oy. See Appeal Brief 2. 2 Claims 8, 18, and 21—46 are canceled. See Appeal Brief 15—18 (Claims App’x). Appeal 2016-004962 Application 13/627,723 BACKGROUND The claimed invention relates to associating relevant metadata and heuristics with captured media segments of an event. Spec. 124.3 Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claims 1 and 5 are exemplary and are reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method comprising: processing context information associated with a media capture device with a processor to determine probable event types associated with the media capture device based on the context information; receiving an indication of a user confirmation of the event type from the determined probable event types associated with the media capture device; determining one or more event objects based, at least in part, on the user confirmed event type, the context information, and metadata associated with at least another media capture device, wherein the one or more event objects comprises specific information; and associating the one or more event objects with one or more media segments captured by the media capture device. 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: causing transmission of at least one of the event type, or the one or more event objects, to cause, at least in part, a coordination of a capturing of the one or more media segments among at least the another media capture device. Appeal Br. 13—14 (Claims App’x). 3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed September 26, 2012 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed March 27, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed September 2, 2015; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed February 2, 2016; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed April 4, 2016. 2 Appeal 2016-004962 Application 13/627,723 REFERENCES The art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Gutta et al. (“Gutta”) US 6,894,714 B2 May 17, 2005 Kurtz et al. (“Kurtz”) US 8,274,544 B2 Sept. 25, 2012 Rodriguez et al. (“Rodriguez”) US 8,660,355 B2 Feb. 25, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1—7, 10—17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kurtz and Gutta. Final Act. 5— 12. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurtz, Gutta, and Rodriguez. Final Act. 12—13. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and issues raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that have not been raised by Appellants and are, therefore, not before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014). ISSUES 1. Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Kurtz and Gutta teaches or suggests “receiving an indication of a user confirmation of the event type from the determined probable event types associated with the media capture device,” as recited in claim 1? 2. Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Kurtz and Gutta teaches or suggests “causing transmission of at least one of the event type, or the one or more event objects, to cause, at least in part, a coordination of a capturing of the one or more media segments among at least the another media capture device,” as recited in claim 5? 3 Appeal 2016-004962 Application 13/627,723 ANALYSIS Issue 1: Claims / 4, 6, 7, 9—14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 The Examiner relies upon Kurtz to teach or suggest “receiving an indication of a user confirmation of the event type from the determined probable event types associated with the media capture device,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 11—17. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Kurtz’s disclosure of a user providing input “such as ‘birthday party’ or ‘purposeful event,’ that defines an event” and of “contextual interface 450 [that] can automatically adapt to such events, by using scene analysis algorithms that recognize different types of events or activities using a set of event type classifications.” Final Act. 5—6 (citing Kurtz col. 19,11. 14—30, 50-60). Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Kurtz does not make “any suggestion that the events would be detected as probable event types, and later selected or confirmed by a user.” Appeal Br. 9—10. Appellants further argue “it is not immediately clear how a user interface [in Kurtz] would look for indicators.” Appeal Br. 9. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Kurtz teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided therein. Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 11—17. Initially, we note the Examiner finds Appellants’ argument—that it is not clear how Kurtz’s user interface would look for indicators—is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Ans. 12—13; see also Appeal Br. 9. We agree with the Examiner, noting claim 1 recites no limitation concerning how a user interface would look for indicators. Instead, the 4 Appeal 2016-004962 Application 13/627,723 claim recites “receiving an indication of a user confirmation.” Accordingly, Appellants argue for patentability on the basis of a limitation that is not recited in the claim. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Furthermore, the Examiner correctly finds that Kurtz teaches both an automatic mode of determining a probable event type and a manual mode in which the user provides confirmation of the event type. Ans. 12—13 (citing Kurtz col. 19,11. 14—30, 50—60). For example, the Examiner finds Kurtz’s disclosure of contextual interface 450 automatically adapting to events by using scene analysis algorithms suggests “determining probable event types” with a processor, as claimed. Ans. 13 (citing Kurtz col. 19,11. 14—30). The Examiner finds Kurtz’s disclosure of user 10 providing input “such as ‘birthday party’ . . . that defines an event” teaches receiving an indication of a user confirmation. Ans. 12—13 (citing Kurtz col. 19,11. 14—30.). Still further, the Examiner finds Table 1 of Kurtz teaches a semi-automatic mode that is a hybrid of the manual and automatic modes (Ans. 16—17; Kurtz col. 20,11. 16—38), thereby suggesting that in Kurtz, user input is used to confirm processor determined probable event types. While Appellants’ argue “the table provides no further description of what is meant by semi-automatic or hybrid modes” (Appeal Br. 8), we agree with the Examiner’s finding and note Kurtz further supports this finding where Kurtz teaches that an initial event classification may either be supplied automatically by video communication device 300 or supplied by a user (Kurtz, col. 22,11. 37-41), which also suggests the event type can be first determined automatically and then modified based on receiving user input or confirmation of the event type. 5 Appeal 2016-004962 Application 13/627,723 Therefore, we are not persuaded Kurtz fails to teach, suggest or otherwise render obvious “receiving an indication of a user confirmation of the event type from the determined probable event types associated with the media capture device,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 11, which is not argued separately, for similar reasons. Appeal Br. 7. We further sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9—14, 16, 17, 19, and 20, which are not argued separately with particularity. Id.; see also Appeal Br. 12. Issue 2: Claim 5 and 15 The Examiner relies upon Kurtz to teach or suggest “causing transmission of at least one of the event type, or the one or more event objects, to cause, at least in part, a coordination of a capturing of the one or more media segments among at least the another media capture device,” as recited in claim 5. Final Act. 9—10. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Kurtz’s disclosure of coordinating a wide field of view camera with the automatic adjustment of near field of view (“NFOV”) camera capabilities including pan, tilt, and zoom (PTZ), ““such that its NFOV 420 can be changed in size and location, in response to signals from either a local or remote video communication device 300.’” Ans. 19 (citing Kurtz col. 14, 11. 60-65). 6 Appeal 2016-004962 Application 13/627,723 Appellants argue “controlling pan, tilt, and zoom does not disclose ‘“causing transmission of at least one of the event type, or the one or more event objects, to cause, at least in part, a coordination of a capturing of the one or more media segments.'1'’'’ Reply Br. 3. Noting video communication device 300 includes camera 120 (Kurtz col. 12,11. 1—6), we find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive because Kurtz further indicates that “the PTZ controls can be directed to follow activity within a local environment 415, such as suggested in FIG. 4B, where the subjects 10 (children) may have moved from the table to the floor.” Kurtz col. 14,1. 67 — col. 15,1. 3. Thus, by transmitting between cameras, data allowing tracking of a child’s (event object) movement via the PTZ controls, the data transmitted between cameras includes an event object. Kurtz, therefore, teaches “causing transmission of at least one of the event objects.” Moreover, the Examiner finds Kurtz Figure 3C teaches an object is processed from one camera to another camera to know whether the subject 10 returns before a delay time has passed, and “then one of the camera[s] will pick up this cue from the other camera through the command from the video device 300.” Ans. 20 (citing Kurtz Fig. 3C and col. 35,1. 65 — col. 36, 1. 7). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that this teaches or suggests transmission of an event object to “cause a coordination of a capturing of media segments between cameras,” as claimed. Accordingly, we find Appellants’ arguments of Examiner error unpersuasive and we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 5. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 15, which is not argued separately, for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 12. 7 Appeal 2016-004962 Application 13/627,723 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 9—17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation