Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2021

2020001492 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2021)

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.
14/285,483 05/22/2014 Mart Kelder 341282-US-NP 6860
144365 7590 05/18/2021
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2021 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MART KELDER, ALEXEY ROMANOVSKY, XIANING ZHU,
and RAN MOKADY

Appeal 2020-001492
Application 14/285,483
Technology Center 2400

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31–33. Appeal Br. 1. Claims 1–7, 13,
and 15–20 have been canceled. Id. at 12–16 (Claims App.) Claims 8–12, 14,
21–30, and 34 have been allowed. Final Act 2, 9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed May 22, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed Oct. 4, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Aug. 4, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Oct. 21, 2019 (“Ans.”), and
Reply Brief, filed Dec. 18, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001492
Application 14/285,483
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method for automatically curating video (1302) to fit display time (1304).
Spec. ¶¶100–102. Figure 13, reproduced below, is useful for understanding
the claimed subject matter:

Figure 13 illustrates capture device (102) transferring to processing device
(104) three-second-long video (1302) including video1 (1202) containing
images captured at the rate of four frames per second and video (1204)
containing images captured at the rate of one frame per second. Id. ¶¶ 101–
103.
Appeal 2020-001492
Application 14/285,483
3
As depicted in Figure 13 above, capture device (102) is configured not
only to capture images at different points in time, but also to capture images
at different frame rates and/or duration of time. Id. ¶ 101. Upon receiving the
images from capture device (102), processing device (104) analyzes the
images to determine a modified playback of the images by using another
frame rate for playback over a second so as to fit the shorter playback time
duration set by playback slot (1304). Id. ¶ 104.
Independent claim 31 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
31. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first video and at least one still image;
analyzing image content associated with the first video to
determine an image quality metric for each of multiple images
of the first video;
selecting a first subset of images from the multiple
images of the first video;
determining a duration of playback time for the first
subset of images;
modifying the framerate of the first subset of images to
accommodate the playback time duration to obtain a second
subset of images;
combining the second subset of images with the at least
one still image for playback from a playback slot, wherein the
playback slot has a predetermined duration;
playing back the second subset of images and the at least
one still image in the playback slot.
(Emphasis added.)

Appeal 2020-001492
Application 14/285,483
4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Kamezawa US 2011/0217019 A1 Sept. 8, 2011
Pacurariu US 2015/0243325 A1 Aug. 27, 2015

IV. REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 31–33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatenable over the combined teachings of Pacurariu and Kamezawa.
Id. at 4–8.
V. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Pacurariu and Kamezawa teaches or suggests “modifying the
framerate of the first subset of images to accommodate the playback time
duration to obtain a second subset of images,” as recited in independent
claim 31. Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant argues that because
Kamezawa’s disclosure of selecting scenes to include in a playback list does
not contemplate modifying the number of frames that are displayed per
second, it does not cure the admitted deficiencies of Pacurariu. Id. (citing
Kamezawa ¶ 104). Likewise, Appellant argues that Kamezawa’s recording
of the length of time used from audio-video data as being proportional to the
number of scenes does not display the number of frames within a given unit
of time. Id. at 9–10 (citing Kamezawa ¶ 81).

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-001492
Application 14/285,483
5
According to Appellant, the Examiner improperly broadened the
claim language by improperly reciting therein the “or different time
duration” limitation from the Specification thereby equivocating the claimed
recitation “different frame rate” with “different time duration,” which the
Examiner reads on Kamezawa’s disclosure that indexed scenes can vary
from three to ten second long. Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Spec. ¶ 107, Kamezawa
¶ 63).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Kamezawa relates to a digital video camera capturing a plurality of
scenes having a length of seconds uniformly. Kamezawa ¶ 63. Alternatively,
Kamezawa discloses the length may vary among the scenes from three to ten
seconds, thereby changing the length flexibility depending on the
characteristic of the scene making it possible to divide the image at a point
comfortable to the user. Id. In particular, Kamezawa discloses that, upon a
user selecting the total playback time for a digest playback, a controller
starts creating a playlist for digest playback by selecting uniformly from
among the scenes according to the total playback time. Id. ¶¶ 69, 81, 82,
Fig. 8.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Kamezawa’s disclosure that
the length of a scene can flexibly vary from three to ten seconds teaches or
suggests modifying a four-second-long scene into a three-second-long scene.
Ans. 15 (citing Kamezawa ¶ 63). Instead, as noted above, the cited portion
of Kamezawa relates to a plurality of scenes of uniform length (i.e., each
scene being four seconds long), and alternatively each individual scene
having a variable length ranging from three to ten seconds. At best, the cited
portion of Kamezawa teaches or suggests selecting scenes of variable
Appeal 2020-001492
Application 14/285,483
6
lengths that add up to the total length of playlist within available slots.
However, as persuasively argued by Appellant, Kamezawa is devoid of any
teaching or suggestion to modify any of the scenes (e.g., from four to three
second length) to accommodate the playback time duration of the scene in
the playback slot, as required by the disputed limitations.
Because Appellant shows at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 31, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 31. Likewise, we do
not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 32 and 33, which also recite
the disputed limitations.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 31–33.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
31–33 103(a) Pacurariu,
Kamezawa
31–33

REVERSED