Ex Parte Weda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

12438554 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

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.
12/438,554 02/24/2009 Johannes Weda 2006P01215WOUS 6792
24737 7590 02/01/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue BADAWI, ANGIE M
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHANNES WEDA and MAURO BARBIERI
Appeal 2016-000609
Application 12/438,554
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 5—12, 14—18, and 20—23. Claims
2-4, 13, and 19 have been canceled. App. Br. 7. We have jurisdiction over
the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
N.V. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000609
Application 12/438,554
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to generating a summary of a
plurality of distinct data streams. Spec., 1:2-4. The data streams are
collected and segmented into natural entities, such as a shot (e.g., a
continuous camera recording) or a scene (e.g., a group of shots naturally
belonging together). Spec. 2:28—32. The data streams are then
synchronized and overlapping segments (e.g., segments recorded at the same
time) and redundant segments (e.g., segments containing the same scene) are
detected. Spec. 1:32—2:1. A summary is generated from a selection taken
from the overlapping and redundant segments. Spec. 2:1—2. Claim 1, which
is exemplary, reads as follows:
1. A method of generating a summary of a plurality of
distinct data streams, the method comprising the acts of:
synchronizing a plurality of related data streams, said
plurality of related data streams comprising a plurality of
segments;
detecting overlapping segments of said synchronized data
streams;
determining overlap scores for the plurality of segments;
selecting one of said overlapping segments;
generating a summary including said selected one of said
overlapping segments; and
generating at least one alternate summary when one of the
overlap scores has a value greater than one,
wherein the synchronizing act synchronizes the plurality
of related data streams based on a trigger, wherein the trigger is
one of a change in a video content and a change in an audio
content common to the plurality of related data stream.
2
Appeal 2016-000609
Application 12/438,554
Rejections
Claims 1, 5, 7—10, 12, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yasui (US 6,618,058
Bl; issued Sept. 9, 2003), Syeda-Mahmood (US 6,507,838 Bl; issued Jan.
14, 2003) (“Syeda”), and Kehlet et al. (US 5,956,046; issued Sept. 21, 1999)
(“Kehlet”). Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yasui, Syeda, Kehlet, and Li et al. (US
2005/0125821 Al; published June 9, 2005) (“Li”). Final Act. 8—9.
Claims 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yasui, Syeda, Kehlet, and Shteyn (US
2003/0117365 Al; published June 26, 2003). Final Act. 9—14.
Claims 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yasui, Syeda, Kehlet, and Howard et
al. (US 2007/0288479 Al; published Dec. 13, 2007) (“Howard”). Final
Act. 14-15.
Claims 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yasui, Syeda, Kehlet, and Nishio (US
2009/0060463 Al; published Mar. 5, 2009). Final Act. 15—17.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Yasui, Syeda,
and Kehlet teaches or suggests “wherein the synchronizing act synchronizes
the plurality of related data streams based on a trigger, wherein the trigger is
3
Appeal 2016-000609
Application 12/438,554
one of a change in a video content and a change in an audio content common
to the plurality of related data stream,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 3—18; Ans. 3—21. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue independent claims 1,10, and 11 together. See App.
Br. 7—11. Appellants set forth no independent arguments with respect to
claims 5—9, 12, 14—18, and 20-23. See id. Accordingly, claims 5—12, 14—
18, and 20—23, stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Therefore we discuss the appeal by referring to claim 1.
Appellants contend the combination of Yasui, Syeda, and Kehlet fails
to teach or suggest “wherein the synchronizing act synchronizes the plurality
of related data streams based on a trigger, wherein the trigger is one of a
change in a video content and a change in an audio content common to the
plurality of related data stream,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9—10; Reply
Br. 3—7. In particular, Appellants contend Kehlet, upon which the Examiner
relies, does not teach or suggest synchronizing a plurality of related data
streams based on a trigger, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 9—10; Reply
Br. 6. Appellants contend synchronization of scene switching, as taught by
Kehlet, occurs when all pixel data has been written and transferred into
4
Appeal 2016-000609
Application 12/438,554
respective frame buffer memory banks and not based on a trigger, as
required by claim 1. Id.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. Kehlet relates to
“[a] multi-display video system for ensuring the proper synchronization of
scene switching.” Kehlet, Abstract. Kehlet teaches the multi-display video
system includes a plurality of display devices, each for rendering a particular
view of a given scene. Kehlet 2:47—51. Kehlet teaches “[e]ach of the
plurality of display devices is coupled to receive a video output signal from a
corresponding one of a plurality of graphics accelerators” and “[b]efore each
of the plurality of graphics accelerators can switch to pixel data
corresponding to the next scene to be rendered, the new pixel data is written
into a bank of frame buffer memory.” Kehlet 2:51—53, 63—66. Kehlet
further teaches “[w]hen all of the graphics accelerators have completed
writing the new pixel data to their respective frame buffers, the scene switch
may then take place.” Kehlet 2:66—3:1.
The Examiner finds Kehlet teaches or suggests performing the
synchronization based on a trigger because “the term based on is broad to
incorporate the steps of inhibiting a scene switch until all the new pixels are
transferred and collected wherein the switch in the next scene is what
triggered collecting the pixels in order to synchronize them.” Ans. 20. The
Examiner’s finding is reasonable and consistent with Appellants’
Specification. See Spec. 3:5—6 (“[T]he trigger may be a change in scene or
shot or [loud] noise, such as cannon fire, a whistle or recognition of an
announcement^] etc.”). As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Appellants further contend Kehlet fails to teach or suggest “wherein
the trigger is one of a change in a video content and a change in an audio
5
Appeal 2016-000609
Application 12/438,554
content common to the plurality of related data stream,” as also recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 4—6. According to Appellants, Kehlet
teaches each display device displays a different view of a given scene.
Reply Br. 4 (citing Kehlet, Fig. 1; 1:48—53). Appellants contend “[w]hile
the three left, forward and right views may be of a given scene, there is no
common content in these three left, forward and right views.” Id.
Appellants contend, therefore, even if Kehlet teaches or suggests performing
synchronization based on a trigger, the trigger is not one of a change in a
video content and a change in an audio content common to the plurality of
related data streams, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4—6.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds (Ans. 20) the broadest reasonable interpretation of “video content. . .
common to the plurality of related data streams” includes video content of a
common scene, which is reasonable and consistent with Appellants’
Specification. See Spec. 3:5—6 (“the trigger may be a change in scene or
shot”); Spec. 4:26—28 (“the data streams can be synchronized by a trigger,
for example, a common scene.”); Spec. 2:31—32 (defining a “scene” as “[a]
group of shots naturally belonging together, e.g., same time, same place,
etc.”). As discussed supra, Kehlet teaches performing scene
synchronization based on a trigger (e.g., switching to the next scene).
Kehlet 2:62—3:1. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Kehlet teaches that
each display device displays a different view of a given (e.g., the same or
common) scene. Ans. 20—21 (citing Kehlet 1:45—55; 1:63—2:15). As such,
Kehlet teaches or suggests “wherein the trigger is one of a change in video
content and a change in audio content common to the plurality of related
6
Appeal 2016-000609
Application 12/438,554
data streams,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1; and claims 5—12, 14—18, and 20-23, which fall with claim
1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 5—12, 14—18, and
20-23 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
7