Ex Parte Mitchell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2016

13125761 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/125,761 04/22/2011
22879 7590 04/18/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
April Slayden Mitchell
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.
82726970 7043
EXAMINER
ZHAO, DAQUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte APRIL SLAYDEN MITCHELL, MITCHELL TROTT, and
W. ALEX VORBAU
Appeal2014-005238
Application 13/125,761
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005238
Application 13/125,761
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-8 and 11-15. Claims 9 and 10 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to the selection of representative video
images. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer implemented method of enabling a selection
of a video image, said method comprising:
receiving a selection of a representative image from a plurality
of representative images wherein each of said plurality of
representative images corresponds to a non-overlapping portion of a
video, said representative image associated with a first set of
selectable representative images each corresponding to a non-
overlapping portion of a first section of said video;
in response to said receiving, displaying said first set of
selectable representative images, wherein each of said first set of
selectable representative images is associated with a second set of
selectable representative images each corresponding to a non-
overlapping portion of a sub-section of said first section; and
continuing said receiving and said displaying until a target
representative image is selected by a user and displayed, thereby
enabling refinable selecting of said target representative image,
wherein said target representative image is for representing said video.
Claims 1-8 and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
anticipated by Ono (US 6,633,308 Bl; Oct. 14, 2003).
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-9; see also
Reply Br. 2-3) that Ono does not describe the limitations "receiving a
2
Appeal2014-005238
Application 13/125,761
selection of a representative image from a plurality of representative
images" and "in response to said receiving, displaying said first set of
selectable representative images," as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the scene designation information of Ono,
which is read from a data base and displayed on an edit screen, as illustrated
in Figure 5, corresponds to the limitations "receiving a selection of a
representative image from a plurality of representative images" and "in
response to said receiving, displaying said first set of selectable
representative images." (Ans. 2-3; see also Final Act. 2.) We agree with
the Examiner.
Ono relates to an image processing apparatus for editing a dynamic
image (i.e., a video image). (Col. 1, 11. 12-14.) In particular, Ono explains
that "[a] series of screen image data [from dynamic data] can be divided into
cuts or scenes in accordance with the contents of the screen image data."
(Col. 3, 11. 31-33; see also Fig. 2.) Figure 5 of Ono illustrates an edit screen,
which includes display areas 70a, 70b, and 70c, horizontal scroll bars 72a,
72b, and 72c, and vertical scroll bar 74. (Col. 4, 11. 55---62.) Ono further
explains that "[u]nder the control of the CPU, scene designation information
and a scene adjacent to the designated scene in the tree structure are read out
from the data base 50, and the memory 48 is accessed to allow a display of a
desired scene on an edit screen." (Col. 4, 11. 50-55; see also Fig. 5.)
Because Ono explains that the CPU designation information is read out from
data base 50, and memory 48 is accessed to allow display of a desired scene
on an edit screen, as illustrated in Figure 5, Ono discloses the limitations
"receiving a selection of a representative image from a plurality of
3
Appeal2014-005238
Application 13/125,761
representative images" and "in response to said receiving, displaying said
first set of selectable representative images."
Appellants argue "that 'the vertical scroll bar 7 4 is used to change the
hierarchy in designating a scene to be edited,' as disclosed by Ono, does not
anticipate 'receiving a selection of a representative image' and 'in response
to said receiving, displaying said first set of selectable representative
images,' as claimed" (App. Br. 8) and
changing the hierarchy as described by Ono is not the same as
"in response to said receiving, displaying said first set of
selectable representative images, wherein each of said first set
of selectable representative images is associated with a second
set of selectable representative images each corresponding to a
non-overlapping portion of a sub-section of said first section,"
as claimed
(id. at 8-9; see also Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants further argue that the
"description of Fig. 6 in Ono describes either a 'predetermined still image'
or the first image is used as a representative image" and "that a
'predetermined still image' is not the same as 'receiving a selection of a
representative image,' as claimed." (Reply Br. 3.) However, the Examiner
cited the CPU of Ono, which displays the scene designation information on
an edit screen, for disclosing the limitations "receiving a selection of a
representative image from a plurality of representative images" and "in
response to said receiving, displaying said first set of selectable
representative images," rather than vertical scroll bar 74 of Ono for changing
hierarchy or the predetermined still image of Ono. (Ans. 2-3; see also Final
Act. 2.) In other words, Appellants' arguments fail to address the
Examiner's specific findings, but instead, draw our attention to other
4
Appeal2014-005238
Application 13/125,761
portions of Ono that was not cited nor used by the Examiner for this specific
limitation.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Ono describes the
limitations "receiving a selection of a representative image from a plurality
of representative images" and "in response to said receiving, displaying said
first set of selectable representative images."
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 9-
10; see also Reply Br. 4) that Ono does not describe the limitation
"continuing said receiving and said displaying until a target representative
image is selected by a user and displayed," as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the use of horizontal and vertical scroll bars
for the edit screen of Ono, in which the scroll operations are performed in
the scene display area, corresponds to the limitation "continuing said
receiving and said displaying until a target representative image is selected
by a user and displayed." (Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 2-3.) We agree with
the Examiner.
Ono explains that "[t]o designate a scene to be edited, horizontal and
vertical scroll operations are performed in the scene display area 70b [of
Figure 5] to display an icon of the edit target scene" and "[ s ]ubsequently, the
cursor is moved onto the icon of the displayed scene, and button # 1 of the
mouse 40 is depressed to designate the edit target scene." (Col. 6, 11. 31-36.)
Because the user of Ono operates horizontal and vertical scroll bars to
designate the edit target scene, as illustrated in Figures 5-6, Ono discloses
the limitation "continuing said receiving and said displaying until a target
representative image is selected by a user and displayed."
Appellants argue
5
Appeal2014-005238
Application 13/125,761
that "[w]hen a predetermined still image as a representative
image of the scene which represents the contents of the scene is
designated, the designated image is reduced into a
predetermined size, and the reduced image is used as a scene
icon" and "when no still image is designated, the first image is
reduced into the predetermined size, and the reduced image is
used as a scene icon," as disclosed by Ono, does not anticipate
"continuing said receiving and said displaying until a target
representative image is selected by a user and displayed," as
claimed.
(App. Br. 10.) Similarly, Appellants argue "that using a predetermined
image to represent a scene teaches away from 'continuing said receiving and
said displaying until a target representative image is selected by a user and
displayed,' as claimed" because "Appellants' claimed features operate until
a target representative image is selected by a user which is the opposite of
employing a predetermined still image as described by Ono." (Id.)
However, the Examiner cited the horizontal and vertical scroll operations of
Ono, which designate the edit target scene, for disclosing the limitation
"continuing said receiving and said displaying until a target representative
image is selected by a user and displayed," rather than the predetermined
still image of Ono. (Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 2-3.) Furthermore, the
question whether a reference "teaches away" from the invention is
inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v.
Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Appellants further argue that Ono "states ' [ w ]hen the input represents
the scene designation 18, a scene as an edit manipulation target is registered
in an access point 24"' and "this ... further illustrate[s] that Ono is used for
designating a scene to be edited and is not for a user to select a
representative image of a video as claimed." (Reply Br. 4.) However, the
6
Appeal2014-005238
Application 13/125,761
limitation "continuing said receiving and said displaying until a target
representative image is selected by a user and displayed" is broad enough to
encompass horizontal and vertical scroll operations of Ono for designating
the edit target scene and does not exclude further editing of such target
scene.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Ono describes the
limitation "continuing said receiving and said displaying until a target
representative image is selected by a user and displayed."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2---6 depend from independent claim 1, and
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2---6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
Independent claims 7 and 14 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 14, as well as dependent claims 8, 11-
13, and 15 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 11-15 is 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).
AFFIRMED
7