Ex Parte Dobbelaar

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 2, 2012

10123790 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 2, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ASTRID MATHILDA FERDINANDA
DOBBELAAR
____________________

Appeal 2009-015165
Application 10/123,790
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and DAVID
M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-015165
Application 10/123,790

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1 and 3-9, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellant invented a method and system for allowing the
selection of a position in an image sequence. Specification 1:1-4.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 3, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
3. A method of enabling selection of a position in an image
sequence, comprising the acts of:
[1] obtaining a temporally ordered collection of key frames for the
image sequence;
[2] displaying in a scroll area a portion of the collection of key
frames, the scroll area comprising a playback area, a forward area, a
backward area and a fast backward area;
[3] upon actuation of a current key frame from the collection of key
frames, said current key frame being a key frame presently occupying
the playback area of the scroll area, selecting a position in the image
sequence corresponding to the position represented by the current key
frame;
[4] upon actuation of a next key frame from the collection of
key frames, said next key frame being a key frame presently
occupying the forward area of the scroll area, scrolling the
collection of key frames through the scroll area in a forward
direction at a first speed;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Mar. 12, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June
9, 2009).
Appeal 2009-015165
Application 10/123,790

3
[5] upon actuation of a previous key frame from the
collection of key frames, said previous key frame being a key
frame presently occupying the backward area of the scroll area,
scrolling the collection of key frames through the scroll area in
a backward direction at a second speed; and
[6] upon actuation of a further previous key frame from the
collection of key frames, said further previous key frame being
a key frame presently occupying the fast backward area of the
scroll area, scrolling the collection of key frames through the
scroll area in the backward direction at a fourth speed, higher
than the second speed.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Miller
Hampapur
US 6,233,015 B1
US 6,738,100 B2
May 15, 2001
May 18, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 3, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Miller.
Claims 1 and 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller and Hampapur.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3-9
turns on whether Miller describes limitations [1], [4], [5], and [6] of claim 3
and as recited in the other independent claims.
Appeal 2009-015165
Application 10/123,790

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions. 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 the Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 3, 8, and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by
Miller
The Appellant first contends that Miller fails to describe “obtaining a
temporally ordered collection of key frames for the image sequence.” App.
Br. 15. The Appellant specifically argues that Miller enables a user to scroll
through a listing of all stored images, and not specifically key frames as
defined by the Specification. App. Br. 15. We disagree with the Appellant.
As noted by the Appellant, “key frames” are defined in the Specification as
“frames that are representative of a portion of the image sequence.” App.
Br. 15 (citing Specification 7:1-5). The Appellant further argues that a “key
frame” requires the frame to be the first frame of a new scene in a video
stream. App. Br. 15. However, such a limitation is merely an example or
embodiment described by the Specification and is not required by the
claims. As such, a “key frame” encompasses a frame that is a portion of a
sequence of images. The Examiner found that Miller describes that a user
can scroll through a plurality of images, where a selected image is displayed
Appeal 2009-015165
Application 10/123,790

5
in a larger portion of the screen. Ans. 3-4 (citing Miller 5:35-38 and Figs. 2-
3). As such, Miller describes “obtaining a temporally ordered collection of
key frames for the image sequence.”
The Appellant further contends that Miller fails to describe “upon
actuation of a next key frame from the collection of key frames, said next
key frame being a key frame presently occupying the forward area of the
scroll area, scrolling the collection of key frames through the scroll area in a
forward direction at a first speed” and “upon actuation of a previous key
frame from the collection of key frames, said previous key frame being a
key frame presently occupying the backward area of the scroll area, scrolling
the collection of key frames through the scroll area in a backward direction
at a second speed[,]” as per claim 3. App. Br. 15-16. The Appellant argues
that while Miller discloses a forward or reverse button to scroll through
images, the direction being initiated is not actuated by selecting a forward or
previous key frame. App. Br. 16. We disagree with the Appellant.
Limitations [4] and [5] of claim 3 merely require that the next and previous
key frames are “actuated.” The Examiner found that “actuation”
encompasses any means to put into motion or action. Ans. 13. The
Appellant does not provide any persuasive evidence or rationale to illustrate
why the Examiner’s construction of “actuation” is unreasonably broad or
inconsistent with the Specification. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s
construction of the term “actuation” and further agree with the Examiner that
limitations [4] and [5] of claim 3 encompass Miller’s description of
actuating forward and backward buttons initiates scrolling in the respective
direction.
Appeal 2009-015165
Application 10/123,790

6
The Appellant additionally contends that Miller fails to describe
“upon actuation of a further previous key frame from the collection of key
frames, said further previous key frame being a key frame presently
occupying the fast backward area of the scroll area, scrolling the collection
of key frames through the scroll area in the backward direction at a fourth
speed, higher than the second speed[,]” as per limitation [6] of claim 3.
App. Br. 16-17. We disagree with the Appellant. The Examiner found that
Miller describes that when a user presses and holds the next or previous
buttons, scrolling is done in the respective direction at a faster speed. Ans.
12-13 (citing Miller Fig. 5B). Although the Appellant argues that this
functionality described by Miller is not the same, claim 3 does not preclude
such a construction. Claim 3 only requires scrolling at a fourth speed, and
does not preclude the use of the same next and previous buttons to
accomplish the scrolling. As such, we do not find the Appellant’s argument
persuasive.

Claims 1 and 4-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Miller and Hampapur
The Appellant contends that claims 1 and 4-7 are patentable for the
same reasons asserted in support of claims 3, 8, and 9 and Hampapur fails to
cure the deficiencies of Miller. App. Br. 19-21. We disagree with the
Appellant. The Appellant’s arguments were not found to be persuasive
supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons.
The Appellant further contends that “it is unknown how the
Hampapur et al. method may be incorporated in Miller et al. in that
Hampapur et al. detects scene changes in a digital video stream, while Miller
Appeal 2009-015165
Application 10/123,790

7
et al. relates to a camera capable of taking discrete images.” App. Br. 19.
We disagree with the Appellant. We find that both Miller and Hampapur are
directed to a video image system and conclude that a person with ordinary
skill in the art would have found the results of their combination to be
predictable. The Appellant has not provided any persuasive evidence or
rationale to illustrate why a person with ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to combine Miller and Hampapur and why such a
combination would have yielded anything more than predictable results. As
such, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 4-7.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 3-9.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1 and 3-9 is sustained.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

tj