Satori Worldwide, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 4, 2020

2019004909 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2020)

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.
15/933,094 03/22/2018 Kyle Lau M102103 1320US1 17025 7271
148646 7590 12/04/2020
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Satori Worldwide LL
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30537-7037
EXAMINER
ZHAO, DAQUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2020 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):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
patents@mz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KYLE LAU, OLEG KHABINOV, BOAZ SEDAN,
and MYKHAILO AIZATSKYI
____________

Appeal 2019-004909
Application 15/933,094
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Satori
Worldwide, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004909
Application 15/933,094

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a “data communication system
and, in particular, a system for streaming live video in a real-time publish-
subscribe messaging system.” Spec. ¶ 2. According to Appellant’s
disclosure, the video frames in the video stream “may be encoded into
messages with metadata associated with the video frame” wherein “the
metadata may include various information and characteristics about the
video frame.” Spec. ¶ 21. Additionally, “a frame analyzer may identify a
type of object within a frame” and “attach additional metadata that indicates
the analysis performed as well as any results.” Spec. ¶ 24.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a first message on a first channel of a plurality
of channels, wherein the first message comprises a video frame
of a plurality of video frames and metadata describing
characteristics of the video frame;
analyzing, by a processing device, the video frame to
detect an object within the video frame;
generating, by the processing device, analysis metadata
indicating an analysis performed on the video frame and an
indication of the detected object;
generating by the processing device, a second message
encapsulating the video frame and the analysis metadata; and
publishing the second message to a second channel of the
plurality of channels.
See Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-004909
Application 15/933,094

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9–12, 14, 15, and 18–20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mitchell (US 2013/0044959
A1; published Feb. 21, 2013). Final Act. 3–4.
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mitchell and Gordon (US 7,254,824 B1; issued Aug. 7,
2007). Final Act. 5.
Claims 4, 7, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mitchell and Usui (US 2009/0226095 A1; published
Sept. 10, 2009). Final Act. 6–7.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) Rejection
With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection
is in error because Mitchell’s cited portions fail to disclose the recited
“generating, by the processing device, analysis metadata indicating an
analysis performed on the video frame and an indication of the detected
object,” and “generating, by the processing device, a second message
encapsulating the video frame and the analysis metadata.” Appeal Br. 4–10.
The Examiner relies on “text extracted from the uploaded image” in
paragraphs 59–61 of Mitchell and on “a user uploaded photo promoted to a
sponsored story by sponsored story application 201” in Figure 8 and
paragraph 74 of Mitchell for disclosing these limitations. Ans. 3–4; Final
Act. 3–4.
Appellant argues that extracted text from an image is not the same as
the recited analysis metadata “because the text from a video frame is simply
a part of the video frame itself, and does not constitute analysis metadata, let
Appeal 2019-004909
Application 15/933,094

4
alone indicate ‘an analysis performed on the video frame and an indication
of the detected object.’” Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, the
Examiner has not properly identified the analysis metadata because Mitchell
“does not expressly or inherently describe ‘analysis metadata’” and
Mitchell’s paragraphs 59–61 “describe comparing an ‘updated photo or
extracted frames to photograms in photographic object database 130’ where
the comparison ‘may include extracting text from the uploaded image.’” Id.
Regarding the second disputed limitation, Appellant argues that Mitchell’s
paragraph 74 “describes ‘a user uploaded photo promoted to a sponsored
story’” whereas “there is no disclosure in Mitchell of ‘a second message
encapsulating the video frame and the analysis metadata.’” Appeal Br. 9.
Referring to Mitchell’s paragraph 77, Appellant asserts
The foregoing discussion shows that Mitchell discloses a space
on a user’s home screen having variable persistence where a
photo uploaded by a user may be promoted. However, a
“sponsored story space” as disclosed by Mitchell does not
constitute “a second message encapsulating the video frame and
the analysis metadata,” as recited by Independent Claim 1.
Nothing in Mitchell suggests that the photo must be
encapsulated in any way before being persisted in the sponsored
story space. Further, Mitchell is silent on “a second message
encapsulating the video frame and the analysis metadata”
because, as discussed above, Mitchell is silent on analysis
metadata.
Id. (citing Mitchell Fig. 9, ¶ 77).
In response, the Examiner explains that the rejection is based on
equating the image object recognition and extracting text data, such as “Grey
Goose Vodka,” to tag the image in Mitchell’s paragraph 61 “to the claimed
‘analysis metadata.’” Ans. 3. The Examiner further reasons that “the word
‘metadata’ is very broad and the text data ‘Grey Goose Vodka’ is the same
Appeal 2019-004909
Application 15/933,094

5
as the claimed analysis metadata because it represents the end result of an
image recognition process.” Id. Additionally, the Examiner explains
The Examiner believes the interpretation above is
reasonable because Appellant is “analyzing, by a processing
device, the video frame to detect an object within the video
frame”, so the claimed “analysis metadata” should relate to an
object. Image object recognition API 60 of Mitchell et al[.] is
an object detection process.
Ans. 4. With respect to the second disputed claim limitation, the Examiner
further explains
The Examiner considers “photo stories 800” of figure 8
corresponds to the claimed “second message” since “photo
stories 800” includes (encapsulating) “Grey Goose Vodka” and
the original frame of figure 4. Paragraph 75 of Mitchell also
discloses “. . . in FIG 8. In particular embodiment, sponsored
story 800 may also include an attribution 39, corresponding to
the entity selected by the sponsor . . . ‘Grey Goose’ and tagged
or otherwise associated 400 with these concept node” and
Figure 8 shows “Attribution” includes entire video frame 400 of
Figure 4, “Grey Goose Vodka”. So [t]he teaching of Mitchell
reads on the claimed “a second message encapsulating the
video frame and the analysis metadata”.
Id.
We disagree with the Examiner’s analysis based on the above-
described claim interpretation. As stated by Appellant (Reply Br. 2), the
tags generated by an image recognition process in Mitchell relate to the
features that are part of the analyzed frame, such as the writings within the
image. Appellant properly refers to paragraphs 22 and 24 of the instant
Specification for a description of how a frame analyzer attaches metadata
indicating detected objects, characteristics, or information related to the
video frame, based on analysis performed on the video frame and the
Appeal 2019-004909
Application 15/933,094

6
identified items in the frame. Reply Br. 3–4. That is, in contrast with
metadata, the OCR results of the words included in the video frame of
Mitchell, at best, correspond to a translation of the text that is already in the
frame and is merely presented in a different format.
In view of the analysis above, we also agree with Appellant that the
portion of Mitchell in paragraph 74, as cited by the Examiner, does not meet
the second disputed claim limitation because Mitchell’s presentation of a
photo stories section of a social media relates to selecting matching photos
from the entries in the activity stream and formatting them to fit into a
sponsored story. Reply Br. 5–6 (citing Mitchell ¶¶ 49–50). In fact,
presenting a photo, even with the image recognition process of writings
within the frame, do not result in “encapsulating the video frame and the
analysis metadata,” and merely result in a cropped photo that fits in the
sponsor’s image area. Reply Br. 5, see Mitchell ¶ 74. In Figure 8, Mitchell
depicts the uploaded picture within the sponsor’s story that is based on
matching the result of the extracted text present in the video frame by image
recognition process with the content of the story, rather than the metadata
obtained from analyzing the video frame. See Mitchell ¶ 75.
Accordingly, given the record before us, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, independent claims 10 and
19 which recite similar limitations, and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 2, 14, 15, 18,
and 20 dependent therefrom.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejections
In rejecting claims 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, and 17, the Examiner relies on the
findings and analysis stated for claim 1 with respect to Mitchell and further
adds Gordon and Usui as disclosing the additional claim limitations. Final
Appeal 2019-004909
Application 15/933,094

7
Act. 5–7. The Examiner however does not identify any teachings in these
additional prior art references that disclose or suggest the above-identified
deficiencies in Mitchell. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, and 17 for the
same reasons stated above for claim 1.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6, 9–
12, 14, 15,
18–20
102(a)(2) Mitchell
1–3, 5, 6, 9–
12, 14, 15,
18–20
8, 17 103(a) Mitchell, Gordon 8, 17
4, 7, 13, 16 103(a) Mitchell, Usui 4, 7, 13, 16
Overall Outcome 1–20

REVERSED