Ex Parte Yamori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12716805 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121716,805 03/03/2010
21171 7590 06/23/2016
STAAS & HALSEYLLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Akihiro Y AMO RI
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.
2220.1003 1440
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
ptomail@s-n-h.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKIHIRO YAM ORI, SHUNSUKE KOBAYASHI,
and AK.IRA NAKAGAWA
Appeal2015-001815
Application 12/716,805
Technology Center 2400
Before NABEEL U. KHAN, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-001815
Application 12/716,805
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application concerns "an information processing apparatus ...
configured to detect an event sound from audio, the audio having been
recorded when video was shot." (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
1. An information processing apparatus, comprising:
a detecting section configured to detect an event sound from
audio, the audio having been recorded when video was shot;
a calculating section configured to determine an event
playback time at which an image associated with the event sound
is played back in a video playback time sequence, the video
playback time sequence corresponding to a playback speed lower
than a shooting speed of the video; and
a determining section configured to determine an audio
playback start time of the event sound during the video playback
time sequence in accordance with the event playback time.
1 Appellants identify Fujitsu Limited as the real party in interest. (See App.
Br. 1.)
2
Appeal2015-001815
Application 12/716,805
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Colles et al. us 4,496,995 Jan.29, 1985
Ueda et al. US 7 ,406,253 B2 July 29, 2008
Kahn US 2002/0128822 Al Sept. 12, 2002
Jeong et al. US 2007/0109446 Al May 17, 2007
Pearlstein US 2007 /0276670 Al Nov. 29, 2007
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jeong and Colles. (See Final Act.
4---6.)
2. Claims 3, 7, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable Jeong, Colles, Pearlstein, and Ueda. (See Final Act. 6-7.)
3. Claims 4, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jeong, Colles, and Kahn. (See Final Act. 7-8.)
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that the rejections were improper for the following
reasons:
1. Jeong "as a whole does not disclose 'a calculating section
configured to determine an event playback time at which an image
associated with the event sound is played back in a video playback time
sequence'." (App. Br. 6-7.)
3
Appeal2015-001815
Application 12/716,805
2. "Nothing has been cited or found in [Colles] providing a
suggestion to modify [Jeong] to 'detect ... based on corresponding audio
information coincident with the video data' (as described in paragraphs
[0015] and [0034] of [Jeong]) when images are played back at a slower rate
than they were shot, by the apparatuses recited in the preamble of claim 4 in
[Colles], let alone to 'determine an event playback time at which an image
associated with the event sound is played back in a video playback time
sequence' as recited in claim 1." (App. Br. 7.)
ANALYSIS
"a calculating section configured to determine an event
playback time at which an image associated with the event
sound is played back in a video playback time sequence"
Appellants argue that this limitation is not met in the combination
because "what the disclosure of [Jeong] as a whole would teach and suggest
to one of ordinary skill in the art is the use of 'audio information such as
cheers, ... [to] detect a final event section ... [in] generating video abstract
information' as described in paragraph [0127] of [Jeong]." (App. Br. 6.)
They further argue that "the Office Action has quoted short phrases, largely
from the Summary of [Jeong] ... which when read in context ... do not
teach or suggest what is recited in claim 1." (App. Br. 7.) We do not agree.
Jeong teaches a method for generating a video abstract in which a
candidate section of the video is selected based on the corresponding audio
information. (See Jeong i-f 15.) The reference explains that "[w]hen the
video data is, for example, data associated with a sports game, the event
candidate section detection unit 110 may detect the event candidate section
by using audio events such as ... the sound of a handclap." (Id. i-f 63.) This
4
Appeal2015-001815
Application 12/716,805
is essentially the same as the detecting described in the instant application,
where, for example, the "impact sound" of a golf swing is detected. (See
Spec. i-f 54 ("The event detecting section 23 detects an impact sound from
the audio frame group to detect the occurrence of an event.").)
The portion of the "calculating" limitation the Examiner finds in
Jeong-"a calculating section configured to determine an event playback
time at which an image associated with the event sound is played back in a
video playback time sequence"-simply requires determining the time of the
image associated with the detected event, which happens when, for example,
Jeong determines the candidate video selection that corresponds to the
handclap.
"the video playback time sequence corresponding to a
playback speed lower than a shooting speed of the video"
The Examiner finds this limitation in Colles, where it identifies, in the
preamble of claim 4, "means adapted to play back said recorded signal at a
given playback speed less than said record speed, thereby to provide a
playback signal having a second frame rate less than said first frame rate."
Appellants agree that this passage describes "to one of ordinary skill in the
art ... that images may be played back at a slower rate than they are shot"
(App. Br. 7), which meets the claim limitation "video playback time
sequence corresponding to a playback speed lower than a shooting speed of
the video."
We find Appellants' argument that "nothing ... cited or found in
[Colles] provid[es] a suggestion to modify [Jeong]" unpersuasive because
5
Appeal2015-001815
Application 12/716,805
the motivation need not be found in the prior art, 2 and Appellants fail to
address the Examiner's stated motivation. (See Final Act. 5.) Appellants'
argument that Colles does not suggest modifying Jeong to "determine an
event playback time at which an image associated with the event sound is
played back in a video playback time sequence" is misplaced because the
Examiner finds that feature in Jeong without any modification.
* * *
Because we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of claims 2-14, which are
not argued separately.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-14 are affirmed.
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
2 See KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) ("The
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.").
6