Google LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2022

2020004416 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2022)

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. 15/799,404 10/31/2017 Changyin Zhou 14-346-CON 8099 98929 7590 01/27/2022 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/Google LLC 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60606 EXAMINER XIE, KWIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/27/2022 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): docketing@mbhb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHANGYIN ZHOU, ROMAN LEWKOW, MARC STEWART LEVOY, and JIAWEN CHEN Appeal 2020-004416 Application 15/799,404 Technology Center 2600 Before TERRY J. OWENS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004416 Application 15/799,404 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a graphic interface and a method for live view representation of image data from one or more image-capture devices, wherein control input by a user applies an effect to the live view representation. See Spec. ¶¶ 5-8. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter (with disputed features highlighted): 1. A method comprising: based on image data from a camera, displaying, on a display of a computing device, a live view representation that shows (i) a first feature at a first portion of the live view representation and (ii) a second feature at a second portion of the live view representation; receiving, via an interface of the computing device, control input indicative of a swap effect, wherein the swap effect comprises causing (i) the first feature to be shown at the second portion of the live view representation rather than at the first portion of the live view representation and (ii) the second feature to be shown at the first portion of the live view representation rather than at the second portion of the live view representation; and in response to receiving control input indicative of the swap effect, producing the swap effect in the live view representation in real-time. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REFERENCES Name Reference Date Patten US 2007/0074115 A1 Mar. 29, 2007 Ptucha US 2011/0025709 A1 Feb. 3, 2011 Vilcovsky US 2013/0229482 A1 Sept. 5, 2013 Appeal 2020-004416 Application 15/799,404 3 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1-4, 7-10, 12-16, 18-20 102(a)(1) Ptucha 5, 17 103(a) Ptucha, Vilcovsky 6, 11 103(a) Ptucha, Patten OPINION We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellant’s arguments concerning unpatentability under §§ 102 and 103. We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments. Analysis With respect to the rejection of claim 1, Appellant asserts that the cited portion of Ptucha in paragraphs 47-49 describes “an image enhanceable item 300 that can be implemented as an electronic virtual display (e.g., a display template) that is displayed on a screen 66.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Ptucha ¶¶ 47-49; Fig. 3). According to Appellant, item 300 of Ptucha includes openings 306, 308, and 310 and is used as a template to display live feeds from different camera placed at different locations in a stadium. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further asserts that Ptucha includes no disclosure indicating that the image displayed in one opening is swapped with the image of another opening. Id. at 7. Based on this summary, Appellant contends that “Ptucha fails to disclose that features in a single live feed are swapped in response to a received control input indicative of a swap effect.” Id. Appellant refers to the cited paragraphs 50-52 of Ptucha and argues the described window openings provide images from different feeds instead of the recited single live view representation. Id. at 7-8. Appeal 2020-004416 Application 15/799,404 4 Additionally, Appellant argues the other cited portions of Ptucha do not disclose the above-mentioned feature related to swapping features in different portions of a single live view representation. See id. at 8-13. In response, the Examiner explains The Office’s position is that Appellant’s assertions of how Ptucha must disclose this particular embodiment of their invention is excessively limiting. It is NOT necessary for only one opening 306 of Ptucha to show two features because two openings can represent the same live event or be part of a single video feed [See Detailed Description, [0049], “Any one or more of the openings 306, 308, 310 can include single images or single videos while other openings can display changing images or videos”; Emphasis Added). The entirety of the display of Ptucha can be stated to read upon the element “a live view representation” since the virtual template display represents the same event (e.g. a ballgame). Ans. 19. With respect to the other cited portions of Ptucha, the Examiner provides similar explanations indicating that the same video may be displayed in one or more of the openings in Figure 3. Id. at 20-23. Lastly, the Examiner refers to Figure 7 of Ptucha and its description in paragraph 134 and explains that the user control of the selected template options (elements 715 and 725) meets the disputed claim feature. Id. at 23-25. We are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred. Although Figure 3 of Ptucha shows a template with three openings for displaying images or videos, the Examiner has not identified any disclosure related to swapping features from any single live image or video. As argued by Appellant, “in light of the Specification and as evident from a plain language reading of the claim, the first feature and the second feature are swapped in the same live view representation.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 105-106; Fig. 9; “swapping features, e.g., jerseys, in a single video Appeal 2020-004416 Application 15/799,404 5 feed”). We are further persuaded of Examiner error because as explained by Appellant, “[w]ith respect the ‘swap effect’ in claim 1, it is clear that the term ‘live view representation’ cannot be construed to read on multiple live view representations ( or multiple video feeds).” See Reply Br. 5. In other words, even if Ptucha directs an image or video to an opening and later directs that image or video to another opening, the entire “live view representation” is swapped and not a feature from the same representation, as claim 1 requires. Conclusion Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, other independent claims 13 and 18 reciting similar features (see Appeal Br. 21-23 (Claims App.), or claims 2-4, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 19, and 20 dependent therefrom. The Examiner has not identified any teachings in the other applied prior art references to cure the above-identified deficiency of Ptucha. Therefore, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 6, 11, and 17. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 7-10, 12-16, 18- 20 102(a)(1) Ptucha 1-4, 7-10, 12-16, 18- 20 5, 17 103(a) Ptucha, Vilcovsky 5, 17 6, 11 103(a) Ptucha, Patten 6, 11 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED