Ex Parte Davies et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

14424632 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/424,632 02/27/2015
78537 7590 04/02/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Fox Entertainment Group
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Davies
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.
FEG1611US2 4031
EXAMINER
GEE, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL DA VIES, ZACHARY FIELDS,
DAVID ERIC SHANKS and GERALD STEINBERG
Appeal2017-010903
Application 14/424,632
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "systems and methods for tracking and
tagging of objects within a broadcast." Specification, paragraph 1.
Appeal2017-010903
Application 14/424,632
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for tracking and tagging objects of interest in a broadcast,
compnsmg:
utilizing a camera to track one or more moving objects;
determining interest in said one or more moving objects; and
rendering graphics in a broadcast over or relative to said one or more
moving objects, said graphics relating to statistics relative to said one or
more moving, previously moving or soon to be moving objects.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-9, 12-13, 15-18 and 20-28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Jain ((US Patent 6,144,375; issued
November 7, 2000) incorporated reference US Patent 5,729,471; issued
March 17, 1998). Final Action 5-10.
Claims 10-11, 14 and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Jain and DeAngelis (US Patent
Application Publication 2011 /0169959 Al; published July 14, 2011). Final
Action 10-12.
Claim 29 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jain and Goldfeder (US Patent 8,495,697B1; published
July 23, 2013). Final Action 12.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 6, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
August 7, 2017), the Answer (mailed June 6, 2016) and the Final Action
(mailed May 20, 2016) for the respective details.
2
Appeal2017-010903
Application 14/424,632
Anticipation Rejection
Appellants note that there are:
[S]ome fundamental differences between Jain [375] and the
instantly claimed invention. Jain requires end user activity,
including end user manipulation of data and web crawling by an
end user. Jain relates to interactive end user systems that require
end users to track and tag objects themselves. Additionally, as
this is a computer-based reference, the display window for
statistics, etc., is just that, a frame 401 (also 508) that shows such
data. There is no teaching of overlay relative to tracked objects.
Appeal Brief 7.
After providing a summary of Jain's disclosure (Appeal Brief7-10),
Appellants contend:
[T]here is no teaching or suggestion of the type of tracking
and tagging required by the claims, including the rendering of
graphics in a broadcast over or relative to the one or more
moving objects, the graphics relating to statistics relative to the
one or more objects.
While Jain may allow discovery and selection of video
portions containing a desired "object" (including players) for a
robust video viewer (as opposed to being on the broadcast end),
it does not provide the same kind of tracking and tagging, with
rendering of graphics in a broadcast relative to the moving
object(s). We also note that Jain specifically describes such
control as desirably being on the user end, rather than being
"constrained to view objects that are selected by the video
producer." Jain, 1:24-33.
Appeal Brief 10.
Appellants argue that Jain fails to teach the type of tagging and
tracking specified in the claims. See Appeal Brief 10. Claim 1 recites
"utilizing a camera to track one or more moving objects." The Examiner
finds Jain teaches the limitation in column 6, lines 25-34 (the multiple
perspective interaction video system comprises a plurality of cameras).
Final Action 6. Claim 1 also recites "determining interest in said one or
3
Appeal2017-010903
Application 14/424,632
more moving objects." The Examiner finds Jain teaches the limitation in
column 3, lines 29-54 ("l\!lultiple Perspective Interactive (l"v1PI) video system
that provides a video vievver improved control over the viewing of video
infon:nation. Using the IvfPI video system, video images of a scene are
selected in response to a viewer-selected (i) spatia1 perspective on the scene,
(11) static or dynamic object appearing in the scene, or (iii) event depicted in
the scene") and column 4, lines 11-26. Final Action 6. Claim 1 recites
"rendering graphics in a broadcast over or relative to said one or more
moving objects, said graphics relating to statistics relative to said one or
more moving, previously moving or soon to be moving objects." The
Examiner finds Jain teaches the limitation in column 28, lines 29-67 ("The
display 401 preferably includes a window for displaying statistics and other
data associated with the muHi-media event currently being displayed. Jn the
football game example, this data can be statistical data about a player, a
team, the yards per carry, interceptions, etc."). Final Action 6.
We do not find Appellants arguments persuasive because they are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Appellants argue that Jain "is a
computer-based reference, the display window for statistics, etc., is just that,
a frame 401 (also 508) that shows such data. There is no teaching of overlay
relative to tracked objects." Appeal Brief 7. Claim 1 does not recite or
require a specific overlay. Appellants further argue, "Jain specifically
describes such control as desirably being on the user end, rather than being
'constrained to view objects that are selected by the video producer.' Jain,
1 :24-33." Appeal Brief 10. Claim 1 does not specify selection being made
by the video producer. We sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claim 1.
4
Appeal2017-010903
Application 14/424,632
We have reviewed the Examiner's anticipation rejection in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief, except
where noted. See Final Action 6-10.
We do not find Appellants' argument in regard to dependent claim 2
persuasive because, as noted above, Jain discloses wherein the graphics
relate to the performance of an athlete. Appellants argue in regard to claims
3-5, that "the context of independent claim 1 makes it clear that tracking and
tagging as well as rendering of graphics relative to a moving object is done
in a broadcast." Appeal Brief 10-11. We agree with Appellants, however
we note that Jain's graphics are relative to a moving object in a broadcast.
See Jain, column 3, lines 29-54. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of claim 3. Further, claim 4 only requires that the
"selection permits the operator to supply said statistics." Claim 4 does not
require the operator to author or create the statistics, only supply them and it
is evident that Jain teaches supplying statistics. See Jain column 28, lines
29-67. We sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 4 and 5,
as well as claims 6-9, 12-13, 15-18 and 20-28.
Obviousness Rejections
Appellants contend:
With specific regard to dependent claims 10-11 and 14, we have
already described how Jain fails [to describe] any graphics over
or relative to the moving (or previously or soon to be moving)
objects as a video overlay. It follows that Jain also does not
describe such an overlay as being faded (the earlier cited portions
of Jain, 23: 16-30, simply relate to an ability to take a snapshot of
a video image on the screen). While DeAngelis generally
5
Appeal2017-010903
Application 14/424,632
provides for fading of graphics, it does not otherwise cure the
deficiencies of Jain.
Appeal Brief 15.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because claim 10,
11 and 14 merely modify the "video overlay" recited in claim 6. The
Examiner finds Jain teaches "a video overlay" in column 33 ("a user control
window whereby the user can control the display of information on the
visual display"). See Final Action 7. Each of claims 10, 11 and 14 requires
various stages of translucence video overlay. The Examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the
translucency of Jain's video overlay in view of DeAngelis's disclosure
("The graphics generated by the present system may be partially transparent
or opaque, depending on the particular graphic being displayed and whether
the graphic is an overlay or not." Paragraph 165). See Final Rejection 11.
We do not find Jain defective and agree with the Examiner's findings;
therefore we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 10, 11
and 14.
Appellants argue:
With regard to claim 19, DeAngelis only describes pushing of
video or still images to user mobile devices (see paragraphs
0184-0185, including description of" ... video feeds from one or
more cameras 11 7 at an event facility may be broadcast through
out the facility (to) users with handheld devices 128 ... "), rather
than use of a wireless device in wireless communication with a
tracking system to allow operators (broadcast personnel) to tag
objects via the wireless device. This claim is thus also not
described by the proposed combination of Jain and DeAngelis.
Appeal Brief 15-16.
Claim 19 recites "wherein an operator determined interest by tagging
6
Appeal2017-010903
Application 14/424,632
an object via a wireless device in wireless communication with an associated
tracking system." We agree with the Examiner's findings that "Jain in view
of DeAngelis discloses a method in accordance with claim 1, wherein an
operator determined interest by tagging an object via a wireless device in
wireless communication with an associated tracking system (see DeAngelis
paragraph 0184-0185 ["Users may select which event characterization
information and/or video/still images of an event are displayed on their
mobile device."], Fig. 9)." Final Action 12. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 19.
Appellants contend:
Goldfeder simply describes (e.g., at 3:1-15) capturing a video
stream at greater than HD television (UHD). While we concede
that Goldfeder contemplates such source resolution (as is
evidenced by the Examiner's cited portion of Goldfeder),
Goldfeder nowhere describes the claimed extraction window.
Accordingly, Goldfeder does not make up for the described
deficiencies of Jain in any way.
Appeal Brief 16.
Claim 29 recites, "[W]herein said broadcast is provided in greater
than high definition resolution, with use of one or more selectable extraction
window." Goldfeder discloses, "The video interface module may receive a
first and a second video stream of an event in a first and a second video
resolution." Goldfeder, Abstract. Goldfeder further discloses that "\Vhik
the second higher resolution video stream may not be broadcast for practical
reasons, it may be edited on the fly to create useful video clips of zoomed
scenes of interest that may be inserted into a broadcast of the first video
stream to enhance the vievving experience of a vieweL" Goldfeder, column
3, lines 43-47. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 29.
7
Appeal2017-010903
Application 14/424,632
DECISION
The Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-9, 12-13, 15-18 and
2 0-2 8 is affirmed.
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 10, 11, 14, 19 and
29 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8