Ex Parte Lettau

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2017

11893638 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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. 11/893,638 08/16/2007 Tyler J. Lettau B509 7492 108982 7590 Wolfe-SBMC 116 W. Pacific Avenue Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER HO, RUAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2017 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): docket@sbmc-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TYLER J. LETTAU Appeal 2014-009929 Application 11/893,638 Technology Center 2100 Before: ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ADAM PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—13, and 15—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 4 and 14 have been withdrawn. We REVERSE. Appeal 2014-009929 Application 11/893,638 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellants, a method and a system recited in the claims, is directed to timeline management of data, such as an audio stream or video clip, on a timeline (Abstract; Spec. 12). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: displaying, by a computer, a timeline comprising multiple frames within a user interface; receiving user input to select, from within the displayed timeline, a segment comprising two or more frames of the multiple frames; visibly marking the segment comprising two or more frames to indicate that the segment is selected in response to receiving the user input; detecting additional user input to a visible user interface element displayed within the user interface for activating a condensing control while the segment is selected and the two or more frames are each visibly displayed within the selected segment; and visibly condensing the selected segment on the displayed timeline in response to said detecting of the additional user input activating the condensing control, the visibly condensing the selected segment comprising replacing the two or more frames with a visual indicator on the timeline to represent the condensed selected segment. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Vallone US 7,843,491 B2 2 Nov. 30, 2010 Appeal 2014-009929 Application 11/893,638 REJECTION Claims 1—3, 5—13, and 15—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Vallone (Final Act. 3—7). ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102(e): Claims 1—3, 5—13, and 15—29 Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 1—3, 5—13, and 15—29, is not anticipated by Vallone (App. Br. 1—32). The issues presented by the arguments are: Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Vallone discloses ““visibly condensing the selected segment on the displayed timeline in response to said detecting of the additional user input... the visibly condensing the selected segment comprising replacing the two or more frames with a visual indicator on the timeline,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as commensurately recited in independent claims 11 and 12? Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Vallone discloses in response to detecting additional user input to a visible user interface element displayed within the user interface for activating a condensing control: visibly removing the selected segment from the displayed timeline; and displaying a marker on the timeline to represent the removed selected segment of the time line, as recited in independent claim 17 and commensurately recited in independent claims 24 and 25? 3 Appeal 2014-009929 Application 11/893,638 ANALYSIS Issue 1: Appellant contends “Vallone is directed to ‘displaying video surveillance system information’” and specifically, “allows ‘segments of the video streams captured by a multi-camera surveillance system to be represented and displayed as’ ‘event cards’” (App. Br. 14 (citing Vallone, Abstract, 3:44-47)). Appellant argues because Vallone describes an event card as “a visual indicator that represents the video stream segment or clip corresponding to the occurrence of an ‘event,’” Vallone does not describe the event cards are generated in response to user input (App. Br. 14 (citing Vallone, 3:47-49)). Rather, Appellant argues, the event cards are generated automatically by the video surveillance system without any user interaction with the video stream prior to generating the event cards (App. Br. 14). Additionally, Appellant asserts Vallone describes “a compressed event card is a grey or black bar that dynamically expands to show a paneled event card when a user selects or rolls his cursor over the compressed event car(F (App. Br. 15 (citing Vallone, 10:14—17)). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown Vallone anticipates claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Vallone’s description of a dynamic compressed event card being represented as “a grey or black bar that dynamically expands to show a paneled event card when a user selects or rolls his cursor over the compressed event card” (Final Act. 4 (citing Vallone 10:11—17); Ans. 7). Vallone describes a compressed event card that may represent a video clip (Vallone 10:11—17). However, the Examiner does not explain, nor do we readily find where Vallone discloses visibly condensing the video clip on the displayed timeline 4 Appeal 2014-009929 Application 11/893,638 in response to user input activating a condensing control, as recited. Indeed, Vallone does not describe visibly condensing the video clip with a visual indicator, but rather, describes that a compressed event card, which may be expanded in response to user input, is shown on a timeline. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has failed to show Vallone discloses “visibly condensing the selected segment on the displayed timeline in response to said detecting of the additional user input... the visibly condensing the selected segment comprising replacing the two or more frames with a visual indicator on the timeline,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited independent claims 11 and 12. Issue 2: Appellant argues Vallone fails to disclose in response to detecting additional user input to a visible user interface element displayed within the user interface for activating a condensing control: visibly removing the selected segment from the displayed timeline; and displaying a marker on the timeline to represent the removed selected segment of the time line, as recited in independent claim 17 and commensurately recited in independent claims 24 and 25. The Examiner has not set forth with specificity where Vallone describes the disputed limitation (Final Act. 4; Ans. 7—8). Rather, the Examiner relies on Vallone’s user selecting or rolling his cursor over the compressed event card as disclosing the detecting additional user input to a visible user interface element displayed within the 5 Appeal 2014-009929 Application 11/893,638 user interface for activating a condensing control (Final Act. 4; Ans. 7—8). However, the Examiner has not set forth with specificity where Vallone describes visibly removing a video clip (or frames) from the displayed timeline and displaying a marker to represent the removed selected video clip. Rather, the disclosure of Vallone on which the Examiner relies (Final Act. 4 (citing Vallone, 10:11—17)), describes a timeline with a compressed event card, representing the video clip. Vallone does not describe how the compressed event card was acquired. Moreover, the Examiner has not shown where Vallone describes visibly removing the video clip or compressed event card and displaying a marker on the timeline, to represent the removed selected segment. Instead, Vallone discloses a user selecting or rolling his cursor over the compressed event card (Ans. 4). Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has failed to show Vallone discloses: in response to detecting additional user input to a visible user interface element displayed within the user interface for activating a condensing control: visibly removing the selected segment from the displayed timeline; and displaying a marker on the timeline to represent the removed selected segment of the time line, as recited in independent claim 17 and commensurately recited in independent claims 24 and 25. Claims 2, 3, 5—10, 13, 15, 16, 18—23, and 26—29 each depend from one of independent claims 1, 11, 12, 17, 24, and 25; therefore, these dependent claims stand with their respective independent claims. 6 Appeal 2014-009929 Application 11/893,638 Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 1—3, 5—13, and 15—29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Vallone. 1 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5—13, and 15—29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Vallone is reversed. REVERSED 1 Because a rejection under §103 is not before us on appeal, we do not reach and express no opinion as to whether at least claim 1 might be obvious over the teachings and suggestions of the Vallone reference, considered alone, or considered in combination with one or more additional references. In the event of further prosecution of this application, we leave such consideration to the Examiner. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 7