Ex Parte PB et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 18, 201612104920 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/104,920 04/17/2008 72058 7590 10/20/2016 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ramesh PB 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. 58083-394805 (B653) 4738 EXAMINER DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/20/2016 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): ipefiling@kilpatrickstockton.com j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAMESH PB and ABHINA V DARBARI Appeal2015-002093 1 Application 12/104,920 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM PYONIN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEivIENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-38. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for predicting a next scene break in a set of video frames based on the 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Adobe Systems, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-002093 Application 12/104,920 characteristics of a previous scene therein. Spec. I :9-10. In particular, upon locating a video frame (210-6) adjacent to the previous scene break (210-5- 1) in a video content, a scene detector (150) obtains statistical predictors according to the characteristics of the previous scene (230-1) to determine the location of the next scene break (310-3) without analyzing the video content thereof. Id. 2: 19- 3:9, Figs 2 and 9. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by at least one processor, a set of video frames; and in response to identifying a first video frame in the set of video frames, the first video frame representing a first scene break: updating, by at least one processor, at least one statistical predictor based at least in part on the first video frame; determining, by at least one processor, a second video frame in the set of video frames based at least in part on the at least one statistical predictor, the second video frame representing a possible second scene break, the second video frame occurring a plurality of frames after the first video frame in the set of video frames, the second video frame being determined without analyzing a next video frame adjacent to the first video frame in the set of video frames; and analyzing, by at least one processor, at least the second video frame to identify a third video frame in the set of video frames, the third video frame representing an actual second scene break occurring after the first video frame in the set of video frames. 2 Appeal2015-002093 Application 12/104,920 Nakajima Suh Wang et al. Wu et al. Sharkey et al. Yeh et al. Prior Art Relied Upon us 5,719,643 US 2003/0123726 Al US 2007/0183663 Al US 2008/0118153 Al US 2009/0030879 Al US 7,880,815 B2 Rejections on Appeal Feb. 17, 1998 July 03, 2003 Aug.09,2007 May 22, 2008 Jan.29,2009 Feb. 01, 2011 Claims 1, 14, and 32-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suh and Yeh. Claims 2-11, 15-23, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suh, Yeh, and Nakajima. Claims 12, 13, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suh, Yeh, Nakajima, and Sharkey. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suh, Yeh, and Wu. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suh, Yeh, Wu, and Nakajima. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suh, Yeh, Wu, Nakajima, and Sharkey. Claims 28, 29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suh, Yeh, Nakajima, Wang. 3 Appeal2015-002093 Application 12/104,920 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 9--23, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-8. 2 Appellants argue that the combination of Suh and Yeh does not teach or suggest, in a set of video frames, determining a second video frame representing a possible second scene break without analyzing a next video frame adjacent to a first video frame representing a first scene break, wherein the second video frame is predicted based on a statistical detector computed from the characteristics of the first video frame. App. Br. 10-15, Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants argue Suh's disclosure of determining a scene change by analyzing each frame in a video set vitiates the claim language. App. Br. 10 (citing Suh i-fi-129, 32, 34, 36, 43, 44). Likewise, Appellants argue Yeh's disclosure of determining a scene change in a set of video frames by calculating luminance difference between each adjacent frame pair in the set of video frames, and then comparing each of the luminance differences to a predetermined threshold is similarly deficient. Id. 11-13 (citing Yeh 1 :8-10, 2:37--47, 6:22-25, 48---67). These arguments are persuasive. Although the Examiner correctly finds that Suh discloses determining a scene change by comparing a present frame with an average difference of the last recent 15 frames, the Examiner overlooks the disclosure that such comparison is performed for each frame within the set of frames. Ans. 39 (citing Suh i1 36). Further, while we agree with the Examiner that the 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 3 0, 2014 ), the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 1, 2014) and the Answer (mailed Oct. 3, 2014) for their respective details. 4 Appeal2015-002093 Application 12/104,920 present frame being compared to the last 15 frames can represent the second frame in the set, we do not agree with the Examiner that the first video frame is not included in the recent 15 frames, which encompass the previous scene including the scene break serving as a reference point to calculate the next scene change. See Ans. 40. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that Suh's disclosure of comparing the present scene with the average 15 frames of a previous scene vitiates the claim language "without analyzing the next video frame adjacent to the first video frame in the set of video frames." Likewise, we agree with Appellants that because Yeh's disclosure of comparing every luminance difference to a threshold requires an analysis of all the frames within a set of video frames, the Examiner erred in finding that Yeh, taken in combination with Suh, teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 40. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's rejections, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments. Consequently, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-38, which recite the disputed limitations discussed above. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-38 as set forth above. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation