Ex Parte Yu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

11925386 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111925,386 10/26/2007 Ke Yu
36192 7590 06/22/2016
AT&T Legal Department - CC
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
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.
070139 (BLL0505US) 2891
EXAMINER
ALCON, FERNANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KE YU
Appeal2015-000380
Application 11/925,386
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-2, 4--9, 11-18, and 21-23. 1, 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is AT&T Intellectual
Property I, L.P. (App. Br. 4.)
2 Claims 3, 10, and 19--20 were previously cancelled. (App. Br. 4.)
Appeal2015-000380
Application 11/925,386
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to "a method for distributing a
continuous integrated video to multiple subscribers via an IPTV network."
(Spec. i-f 6.) Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant's invention, and is
reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving video from a plurality of cameras, the plurality
of cameras collectively focused on a scene, and each of the
plurality of cameras captures video images for a different
portion of the scene;
merging, via the video server, the video images into a
continuous integrated video;
providing an option to select a view and an option to
select a view function from a plurality of view functions,
wherein the plurality of view functions includes a level pan
function, a tilt function, and a zoom function;
receiving; at the video server; an input from an Internet
Protocol set-top box for the view and an input for the view
function, the input for the view determined by an indication
identified by the video server of an area on a display screen of a
display device selected by a user; and
streaming the continuous integrated video, modified by
the view function received from the user, to the Internet
Protocol set-top box, the streaming including, in response to
determining the view overlaps two portions of the scene, as
defined by as defined by common background elements, the
video images captured by two of the plurality of cameras,
applying the view function received from the user to each
portion of the continuous integrated video in which the view is
presented.
2
Appeal2015-000380
Application 11/925,386
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14--16, 18, and 21-22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeNies (US 2002/0021353
Al; pub. Feb. 21, 2002) ("DeNies") in view of Lee et al. (US 6,778,207 Bl;
issued Aug. 17, 2004) ("Lee"), and further in view of Hamilton et al
(2007 /0250635 Al; pub. Oct. 25, 2007) ("Hamilton"). (See Final Office
Action (mailed January 14, 2014) ("Final Act.") 3-7.)
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over DeNies, in view of Lee and Hamilton, and further in
view of White et al. (US 2002/0049979 Al; pub. Apr. 25, 2002) ("White").
(See Final Act. 7-9.)
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeNies in view of Lee and Hamilton, and further in view
of Hasek et al. (US 2007/0127519 Al; pub. June 7, 2007) ("Hasek").
(See Final Act. 9.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
positions.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that "DeNies does not
explicitly disclose a plurality of cameras capturing video images [with] each
camera capturing a different portion of a scene [and m ]erging via a video
server the video images into a continuous integrated video." (Final Act. 4.)
However, the Examiner finds that Lee discloses these limitations and that:
3
Appeal2015-000380
Application 11/925,386
[a ]t the time the invention was made it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of
DeNies with the known methods of Lee predictably resulting in
a plurality of cameras capturing video images each camera
capturing a different portion of a scene and merging via a video
server the video images into a continuous integrated video.
(Id. at 4--5.) Appellant contends that the "[c]ombination ofDeNies,[] Lee,
[and Hamilton] lacks motivation and does not result in ... any reasonable
expectation of success." (App. Br. 11-15.) Appellant further explains that:
The disclosures of DeNies and Lee reveal that the
references employ very different structural frameworks, as well
as processing techniques that are in opposition with one another,
such that there lacks a reasonable expectation that their
combination would result in the features recited in [independent]
claim 1. In particular, in terms of structure, DeNies describes the
capture of a panorama, e.g., by a single 'camera which is
moving along a street' (paragraph [0019]), while Lee discloses
multiple cameras each of which is fixed on a single
corresponding view, and the views from the cameras collectively
form a composite image.
(Id. at 12.) In short, Appellant is contending that the combination of DeNies
and Lee would not work because DeNies teaches a single camera that is
moving along a street and Lee teaches multiple cameras that are fixed on a
scene.
The Examiner disagrees that "the combination of DeNies, Lee, and
Hamilton lacks motivation and does not result in the claimed limitations."
(Ans. 9.) The Examiner points out that Appellant has "mischaracterized the
camera system employed in DeNies [because t ]he camera of DeNies is a
multi-lens camera[,] which is multiple cameras with capture images on a
single mount." (Id.) The Examiner finds that Application No. 09/310,715
(now US Patent No. 6,337,683 ("Gilbert")), which was incorporated by
4
Appeal2015-000380
Application 11/925,386
reference in DeNies, discloses a multiple camera system used to capture
multiple images. (Id.; see also DeNies i-f 19.) Appellant nevertheless
contends "that the record is now unclear as to the teachings of DeNies."
(Reply 2-3.)
We agree with the Examiner that FIGs 5A and 5B teach "multiple
cameras which capture images on a single mount". (Ans. 9.) FIGs. 5A and
5B are reproduced below:
FIG. 5B
FIG. SA depicts "a perspective view of the six lens camera unit 10 which is
used to digitally capture panoramic images, that is, key frames. FIG. SB
depicts a top view of camera 1 O which is included to show that the unit has
six lenses 41a to 41/ Each lens 41a to 41/has a 110 degree field of view."
(Gilbert, 6:31-35.)
Appellant further contends that "DeNies discloses the image
(panorama) is partitioned into individual slices 214, while Lee, by contrast,
discloses individual images taken from multiple cameras (from fields of
view 130, 135, 140) of a scene (view 150) at fixed viewpoints that are
subsequently integrated." (App. Br. 14.) We agree with the Examiner's
findings that while "[ t ]he DeNies system does break down the panoramic
5
Appeal2015-000380
Application 11/925,386
image into slices as characterized by Appellant[]. The panoramic image is,
however, a seamed together panoramic image composed from multiple
images." (Ans. 9, emphasis added.) Indeed, DeNies teaches that the
"images captured by lenses 41a to 41/ are transmitted to computer 20 ....
Computer 21 'seams' the individual images from lenses 41a to 41/ into
panoramic images or key frames, compresses the key frames and stores them
for future display." (Gilbert, 6:36-40.) Therefore, both DeNies and Lee
teach panoramic images that are seamed together from multiple images. In
addition, the "process of seaming images into a panoramic image is known"
in the art. (Id. at 7:42-67; see also DeNies, 1 :26-49.)
Appellant further contends that:
Assuming, arguendo, that the camera of DeNies could be
viewed as multiple cameras ... the panorama [generated by the
DeNies system] is generated from images captured by a camera
as the camera moves along a scene or street (paragraphs [0019]-
[0020]). The Appellant's recited panorama is generated from
images taken from multiple cameras at fixed locations. While
Lee is relied on for disclosing the cameras residing at fixed
locations, the Examiner has not provided evidentiary support as
to how the two references, which use very different systems and
techniques for creating the panorama, may be fairly combined to
produce the Appellant's integrated video.
(Reply 3; see also App. Br. 15-17.) However, paragraphs 19 and 20 of
DeNies do not teach that a single "panorama is generated from images
captured by a camera as the camera moves along a scene or street." (Id.)
Instead, these paragraphs teach that "a series of panoramic images could for
example be a series of panoramas recorded by a multi lens camera which is
moving along a street [to form a] panoramic movie." [DeNies i-f 19.] In
other words, these paragraphs teach how a panoramic movie, which consist
of multiple panorama created over time, is made not how a single panorama
6
Appeal2015-000380
Application 11/925,386
is seamed together. As discussed above, a single panorama is seamed
together from multiple cameras at an instance in time. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that:
Lee [teaches] that it is known to provide a seamed image from
multiple fixed view cameras [and that] the combination of
DeNies in view of Lee, that the panoramic image of DeNies
could be provided from a seamed image provided from multiple
fixed view cameras [of Lee] instead of the seamed image
provided by the multiple camera lenses of DeNies.
(Ans. 9, emphasis added.) Importantly, as discussed above, the "process of
seaming images into a panoramic image is known" in the art. (Gilbert,
7:42---67; see also DeNies, 1:26-49.) Thus, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred.
With regard to claim 5, Appellant makes the same arguments as above
but further contends that
DeNies ... does not specify that the streaming of the plurality of
individual views of the continuous integrated video is
• 1 ' 1 ,.. ' ' 1. 1 1.' ,.. • 1. • 1 1 1mp1ementea ror --a corresponamg pmranty or mmv10ua1
subscribers." Nor does DeNies disclose that the streaming
occurs "based on operation of corresponding Internet Protocol
set-top boxes by the plurality of individual subscribers."
(App. Br. 17.) The Examiner notes that "Hamilton, not DeNies is relied
upon to disclose an IPTV STB [and that] DeNies discloses in Fig 7 that
multiple 'subscribers' are given individual views of the continuous
integrated video." (Ans. 10.) We agree with the Examiner's findings that
Hamilton discloses internet protocol set-top boxes. (Hamilton i-fi-f 13 ("The
present invention will be described herein in the context of an illustrative
IPTV appliance for delivering IPTV and media streaming services to
subscriber clients"), 17 ("Examples of subscriber stations include, but not
limited to, set-top boxes (STBs )"), and 20 ("Today, with the increase in
7
Appeal2015-000380
Application 11/925,386
Internet connection speed ... have provided an ideal backdrop for new
mechanisms for distributing multimedia streams, including ... live
television (e.g., Internet Protocol (IP) television (IPTV)").) We further
agree with the Examiner's finding that Figure 7 of DeNies teaches the
streaming of individual views to multiple subscribers. Figure 7 is
reproduced below:
(
I
Figure 7
Streaming Media Server to Streaming Media Client
__ ......_,.7,D2
Real Networks i
Streaming Mrodia Server I
Session
objoct for
Client "B"
I
!
I
(;;··c;;~~;t--C~;;;p~ter "A'' '·) 7 2 i
i ! n~~~~~~- i i
i Real Networks ! i •
i Browser Plugin I ! i
·==~r>_,~4 i i
-----------s::::--1 I L:l 1 1
Control i !. -·····- i : Strn1:11n ! __ : i
''A'' j i
1 I
Sliced Video
'"'-·-··--------·/
___ __J !'t ...... Pub~c8~:;:rr~11ate , .. -···-·-·······--· . ····--. ~,732
I '.... · Client Computer "B" \
I 705 iw: rjl:;~~r: i JI E:t··---------1 i~~~ rn
1
1
I • Videos !. ''B" ! :,_':,,,,,$?':;:'<~;&~ i
: , ~w I
\"--~~~-------L=.:::~-=:·_-..:_/ l I ~\t~~:• 1
' _: -··-····-··-_J )
-·---'"----~--'"------------'" _______ ..,,,,
Figure 7 depicts an "embodiment of the invention wherein two different
streams are being transmitted from the server to different clients." (DeNies
i-f 15.) Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Appellant does not make any other separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding dependent claims 2 and 4--7, but instead rely solely on
their arguments with respect to independent claim 1. Accordingly, we also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2 and 4--7.
8
Appeal2015-000380
Application 11/925,386
Claims 8-9, 11-18, and 21-23
Independent claims 8 and 15 contain limitations that are similar to
those of independent claim 1, and Appellant's arguments regarding claims 8
and 15 are similar to Appellant's arguments concerning claim 1. (See App.
Br. 17-31; see also Reply 2-24.) Similarly, claim 12 contains limitations
that are similar to those of claim 5, and Appellant's arguments regarding
claim 12 are similar to Appellant's arguments concerning claim 5.
Appellant also does not set forth any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding claims 9, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 21-23, each of which
depends from either claim 8 or claim 15. (See App. Br. 17-31; see also
Reply 2-24.) Therefore, for the same reasons articulated above, Appellant's
arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-
9, 11-18, and 21-23.
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-2, 4--9, 11-18, and 21-23.
Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1-2, 4--9,
11-18, and 21-23.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-2, 4--9, 11-18, and
21-23 is affirmed.
9
Appeal2015-000380
Application 11/925,386
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
10