Ex Parte Obrador et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2012

10819612 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte PERE OBRADOR and QIAN LIN
________________

Appeal 2010-006474
Application 10/819,612
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006474
Application 10/819,612

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1 – 13 and 15 – 29. Claim 14 is canceled. App. Br. 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm-in-part.
Invention
The invention relates providing a visual indication of a content of a
video that reflects a likely intent of a user that acquired the video. See Spec.
3, ll. 3 – 5.
Exemplary Claims (Emphases Added)
1. A method for repurposing a video to reflect a likely intent of
a user of a camera that acquired the video, comprising:
detecting, by a processor, a sequence and timing of
motions of the camera that indicate the likely intent of the user;
generating, by the processor, a visual output having a
first form selected from plural forms, wherein the first form is
selected in response to the sequence and timing indicating a
particular intent of the user, wherein the visual output having
the first form contains plural frames of the video, and wherein
the plural frames selected to be included in the visual output
having the first form are frames containing content reflecting
the particular intent of the user of the camera.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the sequence and
timing comprises detecting a panning motion followed by a still
motion having a timing that indicates an intent to capture an
object of interest.
Appeal 2010-006474
Application 10/819,612

3
8. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the sequence and
timing includes detecting an object motion having a timing that
indicates an intent to capture a moving object.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein generating the visual output
having the first form includes generating a flipbook output or
slideshow output that depicts the moving object, wherein the
flipbook output or slideshow output contains the plural frames
that each includes the moving object.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 5, 8 – 13, 15, 16, 18 – 23, 26, 28, and
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2001/0016007
A1; Aug. 23, 2001). Ans. 3 – 6.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 17, 24, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu and Ratakonda (US 5,995,095; Nov.
30, 1999). Ans. 7 – 8.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Wu discloses (1) “generating,
by the processor, a visual output having a first form [containing plural
frames] selected from plural forms, wherein the first form is selected in
response to the sequence and timing indicating a particular intent of the user
. . . wherein the plural frames selected to be included in the visual output
having the first form are frames containing content reflecting the particular
intent of the user of the camera,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Wu discloses “detecting a
panning motion followed by a still motion having a timing that indicates an
intent to capture an object of interest,” as recited in claim 4?
Appeal 2010-006474
Application 10/819,612

4
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Wu discloses “detecting an
object motion having a timing that indicates an intent to capture a moving
object,” as recited in claim 8?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that Wu discloses “generating a
flipbook output or slideshow output that depicts the moving object, wherein
the flipbook output or slideshow output contains the plural frames that each
includes the moving object,” as recited in claim 9?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “generating, by the processor, a visual output having a
first form selected from plural forms, wherein the first form is selected in
response to the sequence and timing indicating a particular intent of the user,
wherein the visual output having the first form contains plural frames of the
video, and wherein the plural frames selected to be included in the visual
output having the first form are frames containing content reflecting the
particular intent of the user of the camera.” The Examiner finds that Wu, by
selecting key frames of a video based on the detected pan, zoom, and tilt
detected in the video, discloses such generating and its claimed relationship
to the particular intent of the user. See Ans. 3 – 4 (citing Wu ¶¶ [0032],
[0035], [0052] – [0056]).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because:
selection of frames based on their positions within a particular
cluster, as taught by Wu, is quite different from selection of
frames that contain content reflecting the intent of the user of
the camera. The content of the frames of Wu selected based on
positions of the frames do not reflect the intent of the user of
the camera.
Appeal 2010-006474
Application 10/819,612

5
App. Br. 6. See also Reply Br. 2 – 3.
The Examiner finds that key frames are selected based on user
actions, thus the selection is in response to the intent of the user. See Ans.
10. The Examiner’s findings are supported by Wu, which discloses that
“[v]ideo camera users often pan and zoom from one location to another to
show the connection of different places and events and hold the camera still
to focus on an important event or something [of] particular interest.” Wu
¶ [0032]. Wu’s method, in fact, “attempts to capture [the] user’s interests
and some important events.” Id. Since Wu’s method is targeted at capturing
what the user finds interesting or important, we agree with the Examiner that
Wu’s method of selecting key frames also selects frames to be included to
reflect the particular intent of the user. See Ans. 10.
Furthermore, Wu’s selection of which frames in a cluster are selected
depends on the type of cluster (i.e., what the user’s intent was during capture
of part of a video). See Wu ¶¶ [0053] – [0055]. “For example, the potential
key frames selected from a pan cluster can be at the start of [the] pan, the
middle of the pan and the end of the pan or only one potential key frame
from [the] start of [the] pan . . . .” Wu ¶ [0056]. This selection of frames
within a cluster is a selection of a form from plural forms because different
frames are selected for different types of clusters. Moreover, this selection
is in response to the sequence and timing (i.e., the type of cluster), which, as
discussed above, indicates a particular intent of the user. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that Wu discloses “generating, by the processor, a visual
output having a first form [containing plural frames] selected from plural
forms, wherein the first form is selected in response to the sequence and
timing indicating a particular intent of the user . . . wherein the plural frames
Appeal 2010-006474
Application 10/819,612

6
selected to be included in the visual output having the first form are frames
containing content reflecting the particular intent of the user of the camera,”
as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 1, and the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 – 13, 15 –
17, 19, 22 – 27, and 29, which are not argued separately with specificity. See
App. Br. 5 – 7 and 11.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and further recites “detecting a panning
motion followed by a still motion having a timing that indicates an intent to
capture an object of interest.” The Examiner finds that Wu, by detecting a
pan followed by a global still, discloses this claimed detecting. See Ans. 4 –
5 (citing Wu ¶ [0059]); see also Ans. 10 (citing Wu fig. 5D).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that all Wu
discloses “is that a selected frame of a non-global still cluster is removed if
such cluster follows/is followed by a global still cluster. Removing a frame
in a non-global still cluster is different from detecting an intent to capture an
object of interest.” App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3 – 4. However, we agree
with the Examiner that Wu’s disclosure of a pan followed by a global still
discloses detecting a panning motion followed by a still motion. Moreover,
as discussed above, Wu discloses that camera users often “hold the camera
still to focus on an important event or something [of] particular interest.” Wu
¶ [0032]. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Wu discloses
“detecting a panning motion followed by a still motion having a timing that
indicates an intent to capture an object of interest,” as recited in claim 4.
Appeal 2010-006474
Application 10/819,612

7
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 4, as well as claims 5 and 18, which are not argued separately. See
App. Br. 7 – 8.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and further recites “detecting an object
motion having a timing that indicates an intent to capture a moving object.”
The Examiner finds that Wu, by disclosing detecting a pan motion, discloses
the claimed detecting. See Ans. 10 (citing Wu ¶ [0047]); see also Wu 5.
Appellants argue that Wu merely refers to global motion signals that
are converted to global parameters that include a global pan parameter, a
global tilt parameter, and a global zoom parameter. See App. Br. 9.
Appellants contend that these global parameters “have nothing to do with
detecting an object motion having a timing that indicates an intent to capture
a moving object.” Id. However, Wu discloses that the global motion signals
(the source for the pan, tilt, and zoom global parameters) are converted from
block motion vectors. See Wu ¶ [0013]. This shows that, contrary to
Appellants’ arguments, the global parameters are used for detecting an
object motion (block motion vectors). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that by disclosing detecting a pan motion that Wu discloses
“detecting an object motion having a timing that indicates an intent to
capture a moving object,” as recited in claim 8. See Ans. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 8.
Appeal 2010-006474
Application 10/819,612

8
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends on claim 8 and further recites “generating a flipbook
output or slideshow output that depicts the moving object, wherein the
flipbook output or slideshow output contains the plural frames that each
includes the moving object.” The Examiner finds that Wu, by disclosing that
potential key frames can be selected from the start, middle, and end of a pan
cluster, discloses the claimed generating. See Ans. 5 (citing Wu ¶ [0056]);
see also Ans. 10. However, we agree with the Appellants that Wu fails to
disclose that each of the plural frames (the potential key frames) includes the
moving object. See App. Br. 9 – 10. Wu discloses selecting one or more
frames from a pan cluster, which may include the start, middle, and end
frames. See Wu ¶¶ [0053] and [0056]. However, Wu does not specify that
the content of the selected frames includes a detected moving object that is
found in in each frame. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in finding that Wu discloses “generating a flipbook output or
slideshow output that depicts the moving object, wherein the flipbook output
or slideshow output contains the plural frames that each includes the moving
object,” as recited in claim 9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 9, or of claims 10, 20, 21, and 28, which contain similar
recitations.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 8, 11 – 13, 15 – 19, 22 –
27, and 29 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-006474
Application 10/819,612

9
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9, 10, 20, 21, and 28 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc