Ex Parte Deb et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 15, 201612245698 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/245,698 10/03/2008 Sidhartha Deb 45833 7590 07119/2016 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/APPLE POBOX2938 SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 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. 772.169US1 4605 EXAMINER TRYDER, GREGORY J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/19/2016 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SIDHARTHA DEB, GREGORY B. ABBAS, GREGORY NILES, STEPHEN SHEELER, and GUIDO HUCKING Appeal2014-008943 Application 12/245,698 Technology Center 2600 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-15 and 27-37. 1' 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions, 1 We note there is a typographical error in the first page of the Final Action. Claims 16-26 have been canceled, not withdrawn. See Amend. 4, 7 (Apr. 27, 2012). 2 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection. Ans. 31. Appeal2014-008943 Application 12/245,698 and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Clatworthy (US 2007101463 60 A 1; June 28, 2007) and Tam (US 2010/0080448 Al; Apr. 1, 2010) teaches or suggests providing a set of user interface tools for adjusting a region of focus for rendering the space from a particular location within a particular field of view ... to adjust whether the media objects are rendered in focus ("adjusting region of focus" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately set forth in independent claims 14, 31, and 34. The Examiner relies on Clatworthy to teach the "adjusting region of focus" limitation. Ans. 5-6 (citing Clatworthy i1i147, 48, 87, 121). In particular, the Examiner finds the segment of interest and cinematic frame arrangement tools taught by Clatworthy "represent the user interface tools for adjusting a region of focus." Ans. 32. Clatworthy describes a cinematic frame creation system 145 that includes a user interface 305. Clatworthy i147. As pointed out by Appellants (App. Br. 13), the system enables automatic translation of natural language, narrative text (e.g., script) into a series of sequential storyboard frames. Clatworthy i139; see also Fig. 7 (illustrating an example script text file). Clatworthy further describes a segment analysis module that selects a segment of interest (segment of narrative text) for analysis, searches the selected segment for elements, and arranges the objects in the text to create the appropriate cinematic compositions. Id. i1 87. The user interface 305 enables the user to edit the created frames. Id. During examination of a patent application, claims are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. 2 Appeal2014-008943 Application 12/245,698 Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although Appellants' Specification does not include an explicit definition of "region of focus", we agree with Appellants that the Specification consistently refers to "region of focus" as a photography/videography term that refers to an area in a scene where objects appear to be sharp or in focus. See Reply. Br. 3; see also Spec. i-f 31 ("objects located in the region of focus are rendered in focus by the virtual camera"). In light of the consistent use of "region of focus" in the Specification, we agree with Appellants' argument (App. Br. 14) that Clatworthy' s user interface that enables users to select segments of narrative text for cinematic frame creation does not teach "a region of focus" adjustable to determine whether media objects within the region are rendered in focus. Therefore, Appellants persuade us the Examiner has not established that the Clatworthy teaches the "adjusting region of focus" limitation. Nor does the Examiner find that Tam teaches this limitation. We, therefore, do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1, 14, 31, and 34, and their dependent claims 2-13, 15, 27-30, 32, 33, and 35-37. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-15 and 27-37. REVERSED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation