Ex Parte PB et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2016

12104920 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2016)

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