Ex parte SHAHRARAY

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 18, 1998

08191234 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 18, 1998)

Application for patent filed February 4, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte BEHZAD SHAHRARAY
__________
Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,2341
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and LEE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
2
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 7 and 18, which constitute all
the claims remaining in the application.
Representative claim 18 is reproduced below:
18. A method of determining camera-induced scene changes
in a sequence of visual information-bearing frames
constituting a single shot, said method comprising the steps
of:
(a) generating a signal representing camera-induced
motion between each of a plurality of pairs of frames within a
single camera shot;
(b) summing a plurality of the signals for a plurality of
pairs of frames to form a first cumulative signal; and
(c) generating an indicator signal that indicates a scene
change when the first cumulative signal meets a certain
decision criterion.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Gove 5,099,322 Mar. 24,
1992
Miyatake et al. (Miyatake) 5,267,034 Nov. 30, 1993
Claims 1, 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Gove in
view of Miyatake.
Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
3
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
For all the reasons expressed by the examiner in the
answer, and for the additional reasons presented here, we will
sustain the prior art rejection of claims 1, 7 and 18 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103. Inasmuch as we are in agreement with the well-reasoned
positions and legal-factual analysis of the teachings of the
references done by the examiner, we will not for the sake of
brevity repeat that which has clearly been set forth in the
answer. To round-out the examiner’s detailed analysis of the
claimed invention and appellant’s arguments, we add the
following.
Beginning in the background invention discussion of Gove
at column 1, lines 49 through 58, camera motion was a known
factor in determining scene changes in a sequence of images.
Indeed, this portion of Gove introduces the concept that at
Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
4
least with respect to a pixel-to-pixel difference of two
successive images, such may be followed by a threshold
operation to yield a motion gradient. At column 2, lines 34
through 37, Gove indicates that when scenes involve camera
motion his system may use more complicated algorithms in which
objects are detected and tracked in the scene. Columns 3 and
4 discuss certain design criteria that may exist in the design
of an overall scene change detection system as expressed in
the title of Gove’s patent as to whether they will or will not
be included in the final overall system. Of these, the
existence of a camera motion sense ability is one the design
criteria options discussed.
The teachings of Gove are much more significant than even
the examiner appears to realize. The discussion beginning at
column 4, line 48 indicates that as a part of determining
motion, the spatio-temporal analysis capability as known in
the art included the capability of the summation of pixel
values in a detection zone. This is discussed in greater
detail at column 5 as recognized by the examiner. Thus, the
determination of such a motion gradient, as we indicated was
Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
5
known in the art from Gove’s discussion at column 1 and being
based upon a threshold, in Gove alone comports with the notion
of generating an indicator signal when the cumulative signal
arrived at "meets a certain decision criterion or threshold."
The discussion with respect to the decision module 80
beginning at column 6, line 15, indicates that a more complex
system may include a determination whether the camera is not
stationary. In discussing this portion of Gove, appellant
remarks at the bottom of page 5 of the brief that "the ’322
reference recognizes that the presence of camera motion may be
something that effects the determination of a scene change."
We do not regard the teachings so isolated by us in this
decision and all of those recognized by the examiner and noted
in the answer as teaching that a camera motion characteristic
is irrelevant or unimportant or ambiguous. Having said this,
we do not understand appellant’s assertion at the bottom of
page 6 and the top of page 7 of the brief that Gove fails to
show or suggest the use of camera motion as a criterion for
detecting scene changes.
Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
6
We agree with the basic position set forth by the
examiner in which the examiner clearly shows that Gove is not
concerned with the details of camera motion sensing but does
indicate clearly that camera motion is a factor to be
determined in scene change determinations as set forth in
Gove’s own title. The details of camera induced motion
sensing are provided by Miyatake. The focus of Gove’s
teachings is upon scene change detection systems in which the
scene changes within the video images per se. Appellant’s
additional assertion at the top of page 7 of the brief that
Gove does not show or suggest the use of cumulative values of
camera motion for any purpose whatsoever is consistent with
the examiner’s position of the statement in the rejection and
analysis in the answer, since the examiner relies upon
Miyatake and not Gove for the teaching value of cumulative
determinations for any factors affecting camera motion.
Finally, appellant asserts at page 7 of the brief:
In regard to the ’034 reference, this reference
simply discloses one example of a method for
determining motion parameters that may be used by
the present invention. In fact, Appellant discloses
on page 17, line 21 - page 18, line 17 a number of
other similar methods that may be used. Appellant
Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
7
makes no representation that the present invention
discloses a new method of determining motion
parameters. Appellant’s invention lies in the
realization that the cumulative value of such motion
parameters over a series of frames may be used as a
criterion to detect scene changes.
In the same manner that we have indicated earlier that Gove
indicates that it was known in the art to him to establish
threshold values and perform certain signal summations to
determine scene changes generally, Miyatake’s teachings, as
argued by the examiner, clearly indicate that cumulative
values of motion parameters may be utilized to determine scene
changes over a series of frames of images as measured against
a variable threshold value. Miyatake’s discussion
characterizes "camera works" as zooming and panning motions in
the context of his disclosure. Therefore, not only do we find
ourselves in agreement with the examiner’s basic reasoning
process in combining the teaching value of both references
relied upon, it appears, from the above quoted portion, that
appellant is in general agreement with this assessment.
In view of the forgoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1, 7 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SMD
Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
9
Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
10
S.H. Dworetsky
AT&T Bell Laboratories
600 Mountain Avenue
P.O. Box 636
Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636