Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

12533985 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/533,985 07/31/2009
139020 7590 09/14/2016
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP I Apple Inc.
WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100
1050 CONNECTICUT A VE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiaosong ZHOU
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.
082438.021652 8685
EXAMINER
VAZQUEZ COLON, MARIA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOSONG ZHOU, DAVIDE CONCION, GUY COTE, CECILE
FORET, HAITAO HARRY GUO, IONUT HRISTODORESCU, JAMES
OLIVER NORMILE, XIAOJIN SHI, and HSI-JUNG WU
Appeal2015-000852
Application 12/533,985
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000852
Application 12/533,985
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-30, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A coding method, comprising:
decoding a stored sequence of first coded video data to generate
recovered video data therefrom, the first coded video data having been
generated according to a first video coding protocol; and
coding the recovered video data into second coded video data
according to a second video coding protocol,
wherein, during the coding of the second coded video data, a
coding parameter is selected based on metadata representing one or
more conditions during capture of source video from which the first
coded video data was generated, the source video and the metadata
having been generated by an image-capture system.
Prior Art
Florencio us 6,125,147 Sep.26,2000
Vetro US 6,650,705 Bl Nov. 18, 2003
Raveendran US 2007/0081587 Al Apr. 12, 2007
Morad US 2008/0120676 Al May 22, 2008
Shah US 2008/0260042 Al Oct. 23, 2008
Mabey US 2009/0290645 Al Nov. 26, 2009
Kuhn US 7,738,550 B2 June 15, 2010
Luo US 7 ,978, 770 B2 July 12, 2011
Haskell US 8,121,191 Bl Feb.21,2012
2
Appeal2015-000852
Application 12/533,985
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 15, 17-19, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuhn and Raveendran.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuhn, Raveendran, and Mabey
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuhn, Raveendran, and Luo.
Claims 7, 8, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuhn, Raveendran, and Haskell.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuhn, Raveendran, and Shah.
Claims 13, 15, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kuhn, Raveendran, and Morad.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuhn, Raveendran, Mabey, and Florencio.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuhn, Raveendran, Haskell, and Florencio.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuhn, Raveendran, and Vetro.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
3
Appeal2015-000852
Application 12/533,985
Section j03 rejection of claims j, 4, 9, j2, j5, j/-j9, 25, and 28
Appellants contend Kuhn does not teach "metadata representing one
or more conditions during capture of a source video," as recited in claim 1.
Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds the feature points shown in Figure 3 of
Kuhn teach "representing one or more conditions," such as camera shot
changes and scene changes, which happen "during capture of a video
source" within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 6-7. Appellants contend the
feature points of Kuhn do not represent one or more conditions during
capture of a source video, because the feature points are generated during
encoding. Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants' contention is not commensurate with
the scope of the claim. Claim 1 recites the metadata represents a condition
during capture, not generating the metadata during capture. Appellants do
not persuasively distinguish the claimed metadata representing a condition
during capture from the metadata that represent a scene change, which is a
condition that happens during capture of video, as taught by Kuhn.
Similarly, we highlight the motion vectors generated by cameras 111 and
112 as shown in Figure 1 and as discussed in column 4, lines 17-34 of Kuhn
teach metadata that represent the conditions of motion that happen during
video capture.
Appellants also contend the metadata generated by Kuhn is not
"generated by an image-capture system," as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 4.
In particular, Appellants' contend that the transcoding hints generation unit
104 shown in Figure 1 of Kuhn, which generates metadata, does not also
capture video. See Reply Br. 5. The Examiner finds the scope of the
claimed "image-capture system" encompasses the system 100 shown in
Figure 1 of Kuhn. Ans. 7-8. Appellants' contention does not persuasively
4
Appeal2015-000852
Application 12/533,985
rebut the Examiner's finding that the system 100, which includes
transcoding hints generation unit 104, along with cameras 111 and 112, is a
system that captures images and generates metadata for the images within
the meaning of claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that the scope of the
claimed "image-capture system" encompasses the system 100 shown in
Figure 1 of Kuhn.
We sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as well the rejection
of commensurate independent claims 17 and 25, and dependent claims 4, 9,
12, 15, 18, 19, and 28, not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejections of claims 2, 3, 5--8, 10, 11, 13-16, 20--24, 26, 27, 29,
and 30
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-16, 20-24, 26, 27, 29, and 30, which fall with
claims 1, 17, and 25.
We sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-16, 20-24,
26, 27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-30 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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5