Ex Parte Curcio et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2016

13281161 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/281,161 10/25/2011
10949 7590 08/08/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Igor Danilo Diego CURCIO
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.
042933/411334 9860
EXAMINER
MONK, MARKT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IGOR DANILO DIEGO CURCIO,
SUJEET SHYAMSUNDAR MATE, KOSTADIN DABOV, and
FRANCESCO CRICRI
Appeal2015-003216
Application 13/281,161
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-27, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-003216
Application 13/281, 161
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to methods, apparatuses, and
computer program products for utilizing context data associated with the
media content events to retrieve the corresponding media content and
determine data of interest in the media content. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
capturing one or more items of media content comprising
one or more objects;
assigning context data indicating at least one determined
location of at least one of the captured objects and a time that the
object was captured to the media content;
assigning a detected item of orientation information
indicating an orientation of a media capturing device capturing
the objects to the context data associated with the media content;
enabling, via a processor, retrieval of the media content
from a memory based in part on analyzing the location of the
captured object, the time and the orientation information; and
designating at least one segment of the media content as
interesting based at least in part on detecting motion of sensor-
enabled devices captured in the field of view of the media
capturing device and in response to determining whether a
determined correlation value, corresponding to motion of the
sensor-enabled devices and motion estimated from different
regions of the media content, exceeds a predetermined threshold.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Sumanaweera US 2002/0071677 Al June 13, 2002
Meunier US 2006/0133648 Al June 22, 2006
2
Appeal2015-003216
Application 13/281, 161
I Rosenberg I US 2007/0213110 Al I Sept. 13, 2007
REJECTION
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sumanaweera in view of Meunier and Rosenberg.
Final Act. 5-31.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-27, and
we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 5-31 ), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' arguments (Ans. 2-22). We incorporate
such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise
noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
Appellants state that Sumanaweera, Meunier, and Rosenberg do not
teach or suggest capturing items of media content comprising objects as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10.
However, Appellants merely quote the claim language and offer a
bare denial that the prior art teaches that limitation. See App. Br. 10-11.
That is insufficient to raise an argument that that Examiner erred. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 requires "more
3
Appeal2015-003216
Application 13/281, 161
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art."); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim."). Because Appellants have
not identified any specific errors in the Examiner's findings, "the Board will
not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection." Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
Appellants also argue that neither Meunier nor Rosenberg teach or
suggest the designating step limitation recited in claim 1. More specifically,
Appellants argue that Meunier does not teach or suggest determining when a
correlation value exceeds a predetermined threshold as recited in claim 1:
Motion of active devices to augment the identification of tracked
objects does not teach or suggest "designating at least one
segment of the media content as interesting based ... in part on
detecting motion of sensor-enabled devices captured in the field
of view of the media capturing device and in response to
determining whether a determined correlation value ... exceeds a
predetermined threshold", as per independent claim 1. There is
no mention, teaching or suggestion anywhere in Meunier of a
determined correlation value exceeding a predetermined
threshold.
App. Br. 13 (emphasis in original omitted, emphasis added). Appellants
further argue Rosenberg does not teach or suggest a determination based on
devices captured in the field of view of the media capturing device:
A user listening to a musical media file and an
accelerometer detecting moving of the user bobbing and jumping
such that the user's "rhythm of the music" is detected, as at most
4
Appeal2015-003216
Application 13/281, 161
disclosed by Rosenberg, alone or in combination with
Sumanaweera and Meunier, does not teach or suggest at least (1)
designating a segment of the captured media content as
interesting based in part on (2) determining whether a
determined correlation value, corresponding to motion of the
sensor-enabled devices captured in the field of view of the
media capturing device and motion estimated from different
regions of the captured media content, exceeds a predetermined
threshold, as per independent claim 1.
The motion of the user bobbing and jumping to music of a
musical media file played by the portable media player device is
not captured in the field of view of a media capturing device
nor is the musical media file captured comprising objects that are
captured by a media capturing device, as per independent claim
1.
App. Br. 15.
The Examiner finds the combination of Meunier and Rosenberg
teaches or suggests the designating step recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8-11;
Ans. 3---6. Specifically, the Examiner finds Meunier teaches the portion of
the limitation that has been underlined and Rosenberg teaches the sections
that have been bolded:
designating at least one segment of the media content as
interesting based at least in part on detecting motion of sensor-
enabled devices captured in the field of view of the media
capturing device and in response to determining whether a
determined correlation value, corresponding to motion of the
sensor-enabled devices and motion estimated from different
regions of the media content, exceeds a predetermined
threshold.
Ans. 3.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
5
Appeal2015-003216
Application 13/281, 161
disclosures. Jn re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981).
As noted by the Examiner, Appellants' arguments are premised on
arguing the references individually, and not the combined teachings as
applied by the Examiner. See, e.g., Ans. 6. We have carefully considered
Appellants' arguments-including the argument in the Reply Brief that
Appellants did not argue the references individually-and do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we determine that Appellants'
arguments are premised on attempt to distinguish the individual references
and not the combined teachings of the combination of references. For
example, Appellants state in the Reply Brief that Appellants "described at
length that the combination of Rosenberg, Sumanaweera and Meunier is
deficient" citing pages 15 and 9-21 of the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 4.
However, although both Rosenberg and Meunier are discussed, they are
discussed separately, and Appellants never address the combination of
teachings as applied by the Examiner.
Moreover, Appellants' arguments regarding a specific reference often
focuses on claim limitations that the Examiner did not find were taught by
that reference. For example, Appellants focus on whether Meunier teaches a
correlation value and whether it exceeds a predetermined threshold. App.
Br. 13. However, the Examiner relies on Rosenberg-not Meunier-for that
limitation. See Ans. 3. Similarly, Appellants' argument focuses on whether
6
Appeal2015-003216
Application 13/281, 161
Rosenberg teaches whether items are captured in a field of view. See App.
Br. 15. However, the Examiner relied on Meunier-not Rosenberg-for
that limitation. See Ans. 3.
According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of claims 10, 19, 22, and 25, which Appellants argue on
the same grounds (App. Br. 20), and claims 2-9, 11-18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26,
and 27, which are not argued separately (App. Br. 21).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-2 7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7