Ex Parte van Beek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2013

10867981 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

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.
10/867,981 06/14/2004 Petrus J.L. van Beek SLA1044.1 (7146.0222) 5518
55648 7590 04/17/2013
CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP
601 SW Second Ave., Suite 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
LY, CHEYNE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETRUS J.L. VAN BEEK and
AHMET MUFIT FERMAN
1

____________________

Appeal 2010-011088
Application 10/867,981
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 10-12. Appellants have previously canceled claims 1-9.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1
The Real Party in Interest is Sharp Laboratories of America, Inc. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2010-011088
Application 10/867,981

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2

The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a segmentation description scheme for
audio-visual content. Spec. p. 1, ll. 4, and Title.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 10 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the
invention which is reproduced below (emphases added):
10. An audiovisual device having a processor and a
computer-readable storage medium operatively connected to
said processor, said storage medium storing a segmentation
description scheme in metadata of video presented on said
audiovisual device, said video having a plurality of scenes, said
segmentation scheme comprising:
(a) a first segment identifier that identifies a location
of a first video segment in a first program capable of
presentation on said audiovisual device, where said first
video segment is one of a first plurality of video
segments of said first program, organized by said
metadata into segment groups including at least one
AlternativeGroups segment group, and including at least
one TableofContents segment group, and including at
least one other segment group that is not an
AlternativeGroups segment group and is not a
TableofContents segment group, each of said segment
groups referencing at least one said segment of said first
program, and where said metadata organizes said first

2
Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Feb. 17, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jul. 22, 2010); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 25, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,”
mailed Oct. 27, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
June 14, 2004).
Appeal 2010-011088
Application 10/867,981

3
plurality of video segments into a hierarchically nested
relationship defined at least in part by constraints
including:
(i) a segment group is allowed to reference
either at least one segment directly or at least one
other segment group, but is not allowed to
reference both another segment group and a
segment directly;
(ii) an AlternativeGroups segment group is not
allowed to reference segments directly and shall
only reference other segment groups, where said
AlternativeGroups segment group is
characterized by providing alternative views or
representations of a scene, with the same
functionality but either different durations with
respect to each other, or different levels of detail
with respect to each other;
(iii) a TableofContents segment group is allowed
to reference other TableofContents segment
groups, where said TableofContents segment
group defines a navigable table of contents for said
first program; and
(iv) a segment group of any type other than
AlternativeGroups and TableofContents is allowed
to only reference segments directly, and is not
allowed to reference other segment groups;
(b) a second segment identifier that identifies a
location of a second video segment in a second program,
different from said first program, and capable of
presentation on said audiovisual device, where said
second video segment is one of a second plurality of
video segments of said second program, organized by
said metadata into segment groups including at least one
AlternativeGroups segment group, and including at least
one TableofContents segment group, and including at
Appeal 2010-011088
Application 10/867,981

4
least one other segment group that is not an
AlternativeGroups segment group and is not a
TableofContents segment group, each of said segment
groups referencing at least one said segment of said
second program, and where said metadata organizes said
second plurality of video segments into a hierarchically
nested relationship defined at least in part by constraints
including:
(i) a segment group is allowed to reference
either at least one segment or at least one other
segment group, but is not allowed to reference
both another segment group and a segment;
(ii) an AlternativeGroups segment group is not
allowed to reference segments and shall only
reference other segment groups, where said
AlternativeGroups segment group is characterized
by providing alternative views or representations
of a scene, with the same functionality but either
different durations with respect to each other, or
different levels of detail with respect to each other;
(iii) a TableofContents segment group is allowed
to reference other TableofContents segment
groups, where said TableofContents segment
group defines a navigable table of contents for said
second program; and
(iv) a segment group of any type other than
AlternativeGroups and TableofContents is allowed
to only reference segments directly, and is not
allowed to reference other segment groups; and
(c) where said processor interacts with said metadata
to automatically present said first and second video
segments contiguously to a user without storing either of
said first video segment and said second video segment
prior to presentation.
Appeal 2010-011088
Application 10/867,981

5
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Wallace US 2002/0108112 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Vetro US 6,490,320 B1 Dec. 3, 2002
Rising, III US 6,675,158 B1 Jan. 6, 2004
Richard J. Qian et al., Description Schemes for Consumer Video
Applications, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11-MPEG-7 Proposal, February
1999, (“Qian”).
Rejections on Appeal
3

1. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wallace, Qian, and Rising. Ans. 2-3.
2. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Wallace, Qian, Rising, and
Vetro. Ans. 9.
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 4-8) that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Wallace, Qian, and Rising is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Wallace, Qian, and Rising teaches or suggests Appellants’
claimed audiovisual device having a processor and a computer-

3
We note that the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2, as being
indefinite, was withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2010-011088
Application 10/867,981

6
readable storage medium operatively connected thereto, the
storage medium storing a segmentation description scheme in
metadata of video presented on said audiovisual device,
wherein the segmentation description scheme includes, inter
alia, “a first segment identifier . . . organized by said metadata
into segment groups including at least one AlternativeGroups
segment group . . . where said AlternativeGroups segment
group is characterized by providing alternative views or
representations of a scene, with the same functionality but
either different durations with respect to each other, or different
levels of detail with respect to each other,” as recited in claim
10?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
conclusions with respect to claim 10, and we disagree with (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Arguments. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 10 for
emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend that:
[T]he cited prior art fails to disclose the limitation of “an
alternativeGroups segment group” that “is not allowed to
reference segments directly and shall only reference other
segment groups, where said alternative Groups segment group
is characterized by providing alternative views or
representations of a scene, with the same functionality but
either different durations with respect to each other, or different
levels of detail with respect to each other.”
Appeal 2010-011088
Application 10/867,981

7
App. Br. 9. In response, the Examiner asserts that Wallace teaches the
above-identified limitation by segment groups 42b-42c which allegedly do
not reference segments directly (Ans. 5, citing Wallace Fig. 6), and by
Wallace’s teaching that “[t]he sequences of frames for a given theme may
overlap with one or more single frame or sequence of frames from one or
more other themes in the work” (Ans. 5-6, citing Wallace ¶ [0016]), which
allegedly “shows that Themes 42a-c may overlap, thus providing
“alternative views or representations of a scene.” Ans. 6.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s
interpretation of Wallace’s teachings improperly interpreted the claimed
hierarchy when reading claim 10 onto the prior art because, as recited in
claim 10, segments, segment groups, and a subset of segment groups called
“AlternativeGroups,” are characterized by “providing alternative views or
representations of a scene, with the same functionality but either different
durations with respect to each other, or different levels of detail with respect
to each other,” (Reply Br. 4). Appellants further contend that “whereas the
claims require that the AlternativeGroups type of segment groups be a subset
of the general class of segment groups, the Examiner’s reading reverses this
hierarchy in which the designated ‘segment groups’ (playlists) are a class of
AlternativeGroups (themes).” Reply Br. 5 (citing Wallace Fig. 6, and
¶¶ [0027] and [0032]).
We agree with Appellants’ contentions, and disagree with the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Wallace, Qian, and Rising
teaches or suggests Appellants’ claimed segmentation description scheme,
particularly the recited “AlternativeGroups segment group,” as recited in
Appeal 2010-011088
Application 10/867,981

8
claim 10. (Ans. 5-6 and 12-13). We disagree with the Examiner’s specific
finding (Ans. 12), because we find that it is not enough that “[t]he sequences
of frames for a given theme may overlap with one or more single frame or
sequence of frames from one or more other themes in the work,” such that a
sequence of frames could be categorized into two or more themes, (Ans. 12,
citing Wallace ¶ [0016]) to meet the limitation of “providing alternative
views or representations of a scene, with the same functionality but either
different durations with respect to each other, or different levels of detail
with respect to each other,” as required by claim 10. We find that overlap of
themes is not the same as providing an alternative view or representation of
a scene, such that the cited art does not anticipate Appellants’ claim 10.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have provided sufficient
evidence and argument to persuade us of at least one error in the Examiner’s
characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore,
we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10. For the
same reasons, we also reverse the rejections of claims 11 and 12 that depend
from claim 10.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred with respect to the rejection of claims 10-12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and the rejections are not sustained.

Appeal 2010-011088
Application 10/867,981

9
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10-12 is reversed.
REVERSED

ELD