Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

10934888 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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.
10/934,888 09/02/2004 Hong-Jiang Zhang MCS-032-01-CON (MS 4216
163225
69316 7590 02/27/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
VO, TUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHIGEAKI TAKAMATSU and SHINJI KUMAGAI
Appeal 2016-001303
Application 13/934,8881
Technology Center 2800
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 19-23, and 38. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-001303
Application 13/934,888
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “characterizing video frame
sequences, [including] . . . characterizing a video shot with one or more gray
scale images each having pixels that reflect the intensity of motion
associated with a corresponding region in a sequence of frames of the video
shot.” Spec. 1,11. 10—14. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the
appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented process for characterizing a
sequence of video frames, comprising:
using a computer to perform the following process
actions,
deriving from the sequence of video frames
comprising motion vector data, a separate value
indicative of the intensity of the motion depicted over the
sequence in a plurality of frame regions, said deriving
comprising,
inputting a number of frames in shot
sequence order,
extracting and storing motion vector data
from the inputted frames, and
computing a separate value indicative of the
intensity of the motion depicted over the sequence
for each of said frame regions based on the motion
vector data; and
generating an image wherein each pixel of the
image has a value indicating the intensity of motion,
relative to all such values, associated with the region
containing the corresponding pixel location.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2
Appeal 2016-001303
Application 13/934,888
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 19-23, and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 6,665,342 Bl;
issued Dec. 16, 2003) (hereinafter “Brown”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our Decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We below
address specific findings and arguments relating to each of the Examiner’s
rejections Appellants are appealing.
(1) Non-transitory embodiments
Appellants contend claim 38 — which recites “computer storage
medium” — is directed to statutory subject matter, contrary to the
Examiner’s conclusion. See App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue
the Specification distinguishes between (i) computer storage media and
(ii) communication media. See App. Br. 6 (citing Spec. 23,11. 9—14).
Appellants argue the Specification describes computer storage media,
including by using examples (e.g., RAM, CD-ROM, disk drive), such that it
“can[not] be reasonably interpreted to be non-statutory transitory media.”
App. Br. 6—7 (citing Spec. 23,11. 17—22; 24,11. 14—28). Appellants also note
that the Specification describes communication media, in contrast, as
covering transitory media. App. Br. 7 (citing Spec. 23,11. 22—30).
The Examiner finds claim 38 is not limited to non-transitory
embodiments. See Ans. 17; Final Act. 2. We find Appellants’ arguments
unpersuasive, and we agree with the Examiner’s findings. The recited
“computer storage media” is not claimed as non-transitory, and the
3
Appeal 2016-001303
Application 13/934,888
Specification does not expressly and unambiguously disclaim transitory
forms via a definition. See Spec. 23,11. 17—22 (“Computer storage media
includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory . . .,
or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information
and which can be accessed by computer 110.”) (Emphasis added); see
also Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013)
(precedential) (“[Tjhose of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
claim term ‘machine-readable storage medium’ would include signals per
seE).
Accordingly, the “computer storage medium” of claim 38 is not
limited to non-transitory forms and is non-statutory subject matter.
Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d at 1862. We thus sustain this rejection.
(2) A value indicating the intensity of motion
Appellants argue Brown fails to disclose “generating an image
wherein each pixel of the image has a value indicating the intensity of
motion,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 19 and 38.
App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants argue Brown instead discloses
generating an image that depicts a history of relevant motion across a video
sequence (i.e., “moving objects ... are depicted repeatedly along the path of
the objects’ motion through the scene that is captured in the video
sequence.”). App. Br. 8 (citing Brown col. 3,11. 52—67). According to
Appellants, Brown generates the image using pixels having an intensity
representing the relative lightness or darkness of the scene — which
indicates the location of pixels depicting a moving object — rather than
representing an intensity of the motion of the object (i.e., one cannot
determine the relative speeds of objects in Brown’s image). App. Br. 8—11
4
Appeal 2016-001303
Application 13/934,888
(citing Brown Figs. 3—5, col. 5,11. 12—61).
The Examiner finds Brown discloses the disputed limitation. Ans.
17—19; Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner finds the Specification defines the
intensity of motion “using any of three characterizing processes[, including]
. . . a motion vector angle entropy (MVAE) characterizing process.”
Ans. 18. The Examiner finds Brown discloses deriving a value indicative of
the intensity of motion comprising the magnitude and direction of a hue,
saturation, intensity (“HSI”) vector created by comparing pixels between
video frames. See Ans. 18—19 (citing Brown Figs. 2—5; col. 5,11. 1—24,1.
58—col. 7,1. 58; col. 2,1. 55—col. 3,1. 29). The Examiner finds this
disclosure from Brown discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 19.
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Brown discloses image
pixels having a value indicating the intensity of motion. See, e.g., Fig. 4;
col. 5,1. 1—col. 6,1. 61. Rather, the cited portions of Brown disclose a HSI
vector that can be used for determining that an object is in motion (and its
relative location), but the pixel values fail to indicate the intensity of motion.
See, e.g., Brown col. 5,1. 12—col. 6,1. 61; see also Brown Fig. 4 (disclosing
an image showing an object’s path of motion, but from which its intensity of
motion (e.g., accelerating, decelerating) is not disclosed). For example, two
images generated using Brown’s disclosure could be examined to compare
paths of motion, but not to compare the relative speeds of objects along the
paths. See id.
CONCLUSION
Based on our above findings, we (i) sustain the Examiner’s § 101
rejection of claim 38 and (ii) do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection
5
Appeal 2016-001303
Application 13/934,888
of independent claims 1,19, and 38, as well as claims 2, 3, and 20-23 which
depend from one of these independent claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claim 38.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1—3, 19—23, and
38.
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
6