Ex Parte Wide

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2016

12804518 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/804,518 07/23/2010 Thomas Wide
104043 7590 05/06/2016
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
1350 Broadway
New York, NY 10018
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.
30126-002001 7834
EXAMINER
HE,JIALONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2016 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):
patentdocket@tarterkrinsky.com
sformicola@tarterkrinsky.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS WIDE
Appeal2014-005886
Application 12/804,518
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LARRY J. HUME, and JOHN P. PINKERTON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005886
Application 12/804,518
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm the
Examiner's (i) anticipation rejection of claims 1--4 and 9, and (ii)
obviousness rejections of claims 5-8; we reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 10-28. Therefore, we affirm-in-part.
Exemplary Claims
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1 and 10, which are reproduced below with emphasis
added:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a stream of video content;
generating interpretations of the received video content
using speech/natural language processing ~VLP);
associating the interpretations of the received video
content with images extracted from video content based on a
timeline; and
using the interpretations to obtain interpretations of
other images or other video content.
10. A method comprising:
receiving a stream of video content;
generating speech to text for the received video content;
generating passage level annotations from the generated
text using natural language processing (NLP);
2
Appeal2014-005886
Application 12/804,518
associating the passage level annotations with a timeline;
and
associating imagery with the text to generate thumbnails
at periodic time intervals resulting in a database of annotations
to imagery and imagery to annotations.
The Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1--4 and 9 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 102 (b)
as being anticipated by Fasciano (US 2002/0069073 Al; published Jun. 6,
2002). Final Act. 5-7.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fasciano. Final Act. 7-8.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 10-28 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fasciano and Houh et al. (US 2007 /0112837
Al; published May 17, 2007). Final Act. 8-12.
3
Appeal2014-005886
Application 12/804,518
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellant has not
disputed the Examiner's articulated reasoning and findings of the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-7).
Principal Issues On Appeal1,2
Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 6-9), the
following two issues are presented on appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1--4 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b ), and (ii) claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
because Fasciano fails to disclose "generating interpretations of the
received video content using speech/natural language processing
(NLP); associating the interpretations of the received video content
with images extracted from video content based on a timeline; and
using the interpretations to obtain interpretations of other images or
other video content," as recited in representative independent claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 10-28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Fasciano and Houh because
the combination fails to teach or suggest "generating passage level
1 Appellant presents arguments primarily as to claim 1 (Br. 15-16), and
argues claims 2--4 and 9 on the same basis (Br. 16). We select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims rejected for anticipation (claims 1--4
and 9).
2 Claims 5-8 ultimately depend from independent claim 1, and thus contain
the same disputed features as independent claim 1. Based on Appellant's
failure to address the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness as to
claims 5-8, Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 5-8 as being obvious over Fasciano (claims 5-7) or the combination
of Fasciano and Houh (claim 8).
4
Appeal2014-005886
Application 12/804,518
annotations from the generated text using natural language processing
(NLP)," as recited in representative independent claim 10, and as
similarly recited in independent claim 20?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br. 15-19) that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with Appellant's conclusions with respect to the
obviousness rejection of claims 10-28 (see Br. 17-18). However, with
regard to (i) the anticipation rejections of claims 1--4 and 9 over Fasciano;
(ii) the obviousness rejections of claims 5-7 over Fasciano; and (iii) the
obviousness rejection of claim 8 over the combination of Fasciano and
Houh, we agree with the Examiner's conclusions that Fasciano teaches or
suggests "generating interpretations of the received video content using
speech/natural language processing (NLP); associating the interpretations of
the received video content with images extracted from video content based
on a timeline; and using the interpretations to obtain interpretations of other
images or other video content" (Ans. 2-7).
Anticipation Rejections of Claims 1--4 and 9 and Obviousness Rejections of
Claims 5---8
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4--5) that, considering the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim, Fasciano (i-fi-f 19 and 21) discloses
"generating interpretations of the received video content using
speech/natural language processing (NLP)," as recited in representative
independent claim 1. Specifically, Fasciano discloses a speech recognition
module (62), which generates text from speech via an interpretation (the
5
Appeal2014-005886
Application 12/804,518
module's best-guess) of which words are actually being spoken
(interpretations which are sometimes close, but not correct). id.
We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5---6) that Fasciano (i1i133-35;
Figs. 4---6) discloses "associating the interpretations of the received video
content with images extracted from video content based on a time line," as
recited in claim 1. Specifically, Figures 4--6 depict screen shots (candidate
shots) of video clips, to which the interpreted speech recognition results are
matched. id.
We further agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6-7) that Fasciano (i-f 6)
discloses "using the interpretations to obtain interpretations of other images
or other video content," as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Fasciano states
that sound pattern recognition (interpretations) can be used to obtain other
video content having the same sound pattern recognition characteristics.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2--4 and 9 grouped therewith. For
similar reasons as provided for claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 5-8.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 10-283
We agree with Appellant (Br. 17-18) that the Examiner has failed to
clearly articulate that the combination of Fasciano and Houh teaches or
3 Because the issue is not before us, in the event of further prosecution, we
leave it to the Examiner to determine the patentable weight given, if any, to
functional limitations in apparatus claims 20-28. Also, the Examiner may
wish to consider whether claim 20 is indefinite for reciting a hybrid
apparatus claim reciting method steps, i.e., claim 20 recites an apparatus
having a computing system including a processor and a memory, wherein
6
Appeal2014-005886
Application 12/804,518
suggests "generating passage level annotations from the generated text using
natural language processing (NLP)," as recited in representative independent
claim 10, and as similarly claimed in independent claim 20. The Examiner
(Ans. 9) is incorrect that, in light of the Specification, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "a passage level annotation" is "one or more
sentences associated with a video segment." Instead, Appellant's Figure 3
and the Specification (i-fi-f 18-19) provide examples of a passage level
annotation as being as little as a single word ("terrorism") or a name
("Barack Obama"). The Examiner has not provided a citation in either
Fasciano or Houh showing the generation of passage level annotations.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 10-28 because Appellant has shown that the Examiner failed to
clearly articulate that the combination of Fasciano and Hough teaches or
suggests "generating passage level annotations from the generated text using
natural language processing (NLP)," as recited in claim 10, and as similarly
claimed in claim 20. 4
the memory in tum comprises a "visual similarity process" which in tum
comprises five method steps.
4 Because we agree with Appellant (Br. 1 7-18), we find it unnecessary to
address Appellant's remaining arguments (Br. 17 and 18) regarding the
obviousness rejections of claims 10-28 (i.e., whether the combination of
Fasciano and Houh teaches or suggests generating thumbnails at periodic
time intervals or a database of annotations to imagery and imagery to
annotations).
7
Appeal2014-005886
Application 12/804,518
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting (i) claims 1--4 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b ), and (ii) claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
Fasciano discloses "generating interpretations of the received video content
using speech/natural language processing (NLP); associating the
interpretations of the received video content with images extracted from
video content based on a timeline; and using the interpretations to obtain
interpretations of other images or other video content," as recited in
representative independent claim 1.
(2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Fasciano and Houh because the
combination fails to teach or suggest "generating passage level annotations
from the generated text using natural language processing (NLP)," as recited
in representative independent claim 10, and as similarly recited in
independent claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's (i) anticipation rejection of claims 1--4 and 9, and (ii)
obviousness rejection of claims 5-8 are affirmed, and the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 10-28 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
8