Ex Parte Helie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2013

11107435 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2013)

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.
11/107,435 04/15/2005 Martin Helie G&C 30566.376-US-01 5730
55895 7590 05/15/2013
GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, NIGAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARTIN HELIE and STEPHEN F. WHITE
____________

Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 22-24, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. See App. Br. 2. Claims 5, 13, and 21 are cancelled. See
id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to processing video clips. See Spec. ¶
0001. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for
modifying a clip comprising:
(a) obtaining, in a computer apparatus, a first
processed result clip having a clip history, wherein the
clip history comprises an operation performed to produce
the first result clip;
(b) loading, in the computer apparatus, the first
processed result clip into a processing application,
wherein:
(i) the processing application comprises a
procedural renderer configured to display a process
tree schematic view of a flow of image data for a
clip, wherein one or more nodes in the schematic
view represent operations performed to create the
clip;
(ii) the loading of the first processed result
clip opens the clip history for the first processed
result clip into the process tree schematic view
wherein one of the one or more nodes represents
the operation performed to create the first
processed result clip;
(c) modifying, in the computer apparatus, the
operation by modifying a node in the processing
application; and
(d) producing, in the computer apparatus, a second
result clip based on the modified operation.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Yaegashi US 6,154,601 Nov. 28, 2000
Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

3
Sumiyoshi US 6,278,497 B1 Aug. 21, 2001
Kanda US 6,324,335 B1 Nov. 27, 2001
Catlow US 6,445,874 B1 Sept. 3, 2002
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Catlow and Sumiyoshi. See Ans.
3-6.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Catlow, Sumiyoshi, and Yaegashi. See Ans. 6-7.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Catlow, Sumiyoshi, and Kanda. See Ans.
7-10.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16
1
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter. See July 14, 2009, Final Rej. 3-4.
Appellants also contend that claim 22 is objected to as containing an
informality. See App. Br. 2, 7-8. Ordinarily an objection is petitionable and
a rejection is appealable to the Board. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.181, 41.31.
Accordingly, we decline to consider the objection to claim 22 on appeal.

ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, AND 22
UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 17, and 20
The Examiner finds that Catlow teaches each limitation of claim 1
except for “the processing application comprises a procedural renderer
configured to display a process tree schematic view of a flow of image data

1
The rejection states that claims 5 and 13 are also rejected. See July 14,
2009, Final Rej. 3-4. However, these claims are cancelled. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

4
for a clip, wherein one or more nodes in the schematic view represent
operations performed to create the clip” and “the loading of the first
processed result clip opens the clip history for the first processed result clip
into the process tree schematic view wherein one of the one or more nodes
represents the operation performed to create the first processed result clip,”
both of which the Examiner finds in Sumiyoshi. See Ans. 3-5.
Appellants first argue that neither Catlow nor Sumiyoshi teaches the
ability to open a “fully processed” result clip and open all the operations
used to create that clip. See App. Br. 9, 11. However, claim 1 does not
recite opening a “fully processed clip.” Instead, it more broadly recites
loading a “first processed result clip.” Likewise, claim 1 does not recite the
ability to open all the operations used to create a clip. Rather, it recites
opening a “clip history” and further recites viewing one or more nodes
wherein the node represents the operation performed to create the first
processed result clip. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in
scope with the claim language.
Appellants also contend that Catlow does not teach (1) a result clip
that can be edited; (2) the ability to load a processed clip or clip data into a
processing tree; or (3) using a clip history after a result clip is delivered to a
user. See App. Br. 10. Similarly, Appellants argue that Catlow “merely
describes the creation of a result clip with accompanying clip data” rather
than loading the clip history itself into a process tree with each node
representing the operation performed to create the first processed clip. App.
Br. 11.
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. Catlow teaches loading
video clips from video stores 7 into an image processor 6, under the control
Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

5
of a control processor 10. See Catlow, Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 25-62; col. 5, ll. 22-
38; see also Ans. 4. Each clip is accompanied by additional “clip data”
(stored in an editing memory 12), including data regarding how the clip is to
be processed (i.e., operations to be performed) as well as history data. See
Catlow, col. 5, ll. 33-38. The history data of a particular clip can include
pointers to the clip data of other clips that have been combined to form that
clip. See Catlow, col. 6, ll. 49-57. Catlow also teaches that clip history can
be represented in the form of a tree. For example, Figure 5 of Catlow shows
a processing and editing scheme for processing and combining several clips
into a single clip. See Catlow, col. 7, ll. 6-18. Catlow’s Figure 5 represents
this scheme as a tree of nodes, where each node includes clip data
representative of an operation to be performed to produce a result clip. For
example, operations can include reducing the size of an image in the clip and
combining that clip with another clip. See Catlow, col. 5, l. 65–col. 6, l. 9;
Fig. 3. Indeed, Catlow’s Figure 5 is similar to the “process tree” illustrated
in Appellants’ Figure 5.
As to whether Catlow’s history can be used after a result clip is
delivered to a user, that is not a requirement of claim 1. In any case, Catlow
teaches modifying an operation represented by a node by modifying the clip
data at that node. For example, Catlow teaches that an error can be
corrected at a node by simply accessing the clip data at that node and
modifying the process data of the clip data. See Catlow, col. 7, ll. 45-62.
Here, the history data (e.g., clip data of the initial clips and other edited clips
pointed to by the history pointers) for an already processed clip (e.g., result
clip 64) is loaded into the editing memory and modified, such that operations
Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

6
change and a different second result clip is produced. See Catlow, col. 5, l.
50–col. 6, l. 9.
Regarding Sumiyoshi, Appellants contend that it does not teach
loading an already processed result clip and then loading a clip history with
each node representing an operation performed to create the result clip. See
App. Br. 12. Instead, Appellants argue, Sumiyoshi’s tree structure merely
displays icons representing the first frames of cut images, and Sumiyoshi
does not teach the concepts of loading processed result clips and clip
histories. See App. Br. 13. However, as explained above, this is taught in
Catlow. Appellants are considering the references individually, rather than
addressing their combined teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). Combined, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that Catlow’s clip history, represented in a tree (e.g., Figure 5),
could be presented on a display through a procedural renderer, such as
shown in Sumiyoshi (which shows data representative of a clip displayed in
a tree format). See Ans. 4-5. A skilled artisan would have combined these
teachings “for the advantage of providing a viewing communication to the
user for easy understanding.” Ans. 5. Appellants do not adequately explain
why this conclusion lacks rational underpinning.
In sum, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding
that claim 1 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
of claim 1. Because claims 4, 9, 12, 17, and 20 are not separately argued
with particularity, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims for
the same reasons set forth in our discussion of claim 1 above. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

7
Claims 3, 11, and 19
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and further recites that the modifying of
the operation comprises modifying a property setting of the operation.
Appellants contend that neither Catlow nor Sumiyoshi teaches the ability to
open an editing operation that was already used to produce an output clip
and change a setting of that operation to create an entirely new second result
clip. See App. Br. 14. Claim 3 does not recite opening and editing an
operation that was already used to produce an output clip or creating an
entirely new second result clip. Therefore, Appellants’ argument is not
commensurate in scope with the claim language.
Nevertheless, as explained above, Catlow teaches that, after a result
clip has been created (e.g., Figure 5, item 64), clip data at a particular node
(e.g., clip data 70 or 71) can be modified, while other clip data remains the
same (e.g., clip data for clip 61), and that as a result, “the entire editing
scheme is corrected so that the edited clip 61 (and thus the edited clip 63 and
the result clip 64) include the desired portions of the initial clips 50 and 51
layered together.” Catlow, col. 7, ll. 53-62. Thus, Catlow does teach the
ability to open an editing operation that was already used (clip data 70 or 71)
to produce an output clip (result clip 64) and change a setting of that
operation to create a new second result clip (new result clip 64).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3. Because claims 11
and 19 are not separately argued with particularity, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims for the same reasons set forth in our
discussion of claim 3 above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

8
Claims 6, 14, and 22
Claim 6 depends on claim 1. Appellants contend that Sumiyoshi does
not teach operations used to create a first processed result clip. See App. Br.
15. Appellants also argue that Sumiyoshi does not teach the ability to
modify a node; instead, in Sumiyoshi, when editing is performed by
dragging an “M-icon” (an icon representing a “cut” image,” or set of frames)
into the tree structure, “a new M-icon is merely dragged into place.” Id.
However, Sumiyoshi explains that “[b]y operating the displayed M-icon on
the display screen with use of a pointing device, the operator can carry out
such editing operations as move, delete, couple, transform or special effect
on the entire ‘cut’ represented by the M-icon.” Sumiyoshi, col. 2, l. 65–col.
3, l. 2. Thus, we are not persuaded that Sumiyoshi fails to teach the ability
to modify a node.
Moreover, Catlow also teaches this limitation. For example, Catlow,
at column 5, line 50 to column 6, line 9, describes several operations,
represented by the clip data at a node, that can be performed on clips,
including combining clips, transitioning between clips using fades or wipes
over several frames, and reducing the size of images in the clips. Catlow
also explains that nodes can be modified selectively without changing other
nodes, thereby at least suggesting that any node may be modified. See
Catlow, col. 7, ll. 45-62. Catlow also teaches that the clip history is
maintained after nodes are modified. See Catlow, col. 7, ll. 63-67.
Finally, Appellants argue that neither Catlow nor Sumiyoshi teaches
loading already processed clips and associated clip histories followed by the
editing of individual operations in the clip history. See App. Br. 15.
However, as explained above, Catlow teaches loading clip histories and
Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

9
editing clip data for selected individual nodes. See, e.g., Catlow, col. 7, ll.
63-67. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6. Because claims 14
and 22 are not separately argued with particularity, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims for the same reasons set forth in our
discussion of claim 6 above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 2, 10, AND 18 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 2 depends on claim 1. The Examiner acknowledges that
Catlow and Sumiyoshi do not teach that “representations of the first
processed result clip and the second result clip are both displayed
simultaneously for selection by a user.” See Ans. 6-7. However, the
Examiner finds that Yaegashi teaches representations of a first processed
result clip and a second processed result clip displayed simultaneously for
selection by a user. See Ans. 7.
Appellants argue that Catlow does not teach storing multiple versions
of a clip once a clip history has been edited, and instead that Catlow teaches
that the original result clip no longer exists after modification. See App. Br.
15-16 (citing Catlow, col. 7, ll. 45-62). Appellants further argue that this
teaching of replacing the first clip with the second teaches away from storing
clip histories for both. See App. Br. 16. According to Appellants, because
there is no showing of first and second result clips whose histories are
simultaneously maintained, there is no showing of simultaneously
displaying representations of both result clips. See App. Br. 15.
Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

10
We disagree. First, claim 2 does not recite simultaneously storing
histories for both a first and a second result clip. Instead, it recites
simultaneously displaying “representations” of both the first and second
processed result clips. Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate
in scope with the claim language. Moreover, nothing in the portion of
Catlow cited by Appellants teaches that the first result clip is discarded.
Indeed, Catlow further explains that:
Once a result clip 23, 64 acceptable to the user has been created
all of the video data in the video disc store for all of the initial
clips, the processed clips, the layered and edited clips and the
result clip is made available for transfer to the VTR 2 for
storage on an archive video tape.
Catlow, col. 7, ll. 63-67. This at least suggests that the clip data for the first
result clip 64 (before correction) is kept. Thus, even if claim 2 requires
simultaneously storing clip histories for both first and second processed
result clips, Catlow teaches it.
Regarding Yaegashi, Appellants argue that there is no teaching of
displaying two full processed result clips simultaneously for selection by a
user. See App. Br. 16-17. Similarly, Appellants assert that Yaegashi does
not teach showing a clip history for a first scene, editing that clip history to
produce a second scene, and then both displaying and selecting either the
first or second scene. See App. Br. 17. However, the Examiner only cited
Yaegashi for a teaching of displaying representations of two clips
simultaneously for selection by the user. See Ans. 7. As explained above,
the remaining features of claim 2 are disclosed in Catlow. Once again,
Appellants’ arguments attack the references individually without regard to
the combination of those references, an approach we consider unpersuasive.
See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

11
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2. Because claims 10
and 18 are not separately argued with particularity, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims for the same reasons set forth in our
discussion of claim 2 above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, AND 24 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 7, 15, and 23
Claim 7 depends on claim 1. The Examiner finds that Kanda teaches
“loading the first processed result clip into [a] timeline component” and
“selecting, in the timeline component, [a] clip segment having [a] clip
history.” See Ans. 9. Appellants argue that Kanda does not teach “viewing
a clip in a timeline view, the selection of such a clip that then loads the
selected clip into a schematic tree based view as claimed.” App. Br. 18.
Appellants similarly argue that “[t]here is simply no capability or even
remote attempt to load a clip from one view into another view in Kanda or
the other cited references.” Id.
However, as explained above for claim 1, Catlow and Sumiyoshi, not
Kanda, are cited as teaching loading a clip into a schematic tree based view
(Catlow showing loading a selected clip as well as clip data organized in a
tree structure and Sumiyoshi showing a procedural renderer displaying clip
data in a tree format). See also Ans. 8. As the Examiner concluded, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these teachings of
Catlow and Sumiyoshi with the teachings of Kanda in order to make editing
of clips easier. See Ans. 9. Appellants’ arguments merely attack Kanda
individually without considering the combination of Kanda with Catlow and
Sumiyoshi. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Nor do Appellants persuasively
Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

12
explain why the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness lacks rational
underpinning.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7. Because claims 15
and 23 are not separately argued with particularity, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims for the same reasons set forth in our
discussion of claim 7 above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Claims 8, 16, and 24
Claim 8 depends directly on claim 7 and indirectly on claim 1, and
adds that “the producing of the second result clip comprises providing an
option to process all of the multiple clip segments to produce the second
result clip or processing only the selected clip segment having the modified
operation to produce the second result clip.” The Examiner finds that the
prior art cited for claim 1 also teaches this additional limitation. See Ans.
10. Appellants characterize this as an “omnibus type” rejection and
complain that it fails to address the specific limitation recited in claim 8. See
App. Br. 18. Appellants further argue that none of the cited references
teaches “selecting a subset of clip segments and only processing such a
selected subset in order to produce a second result clip that is displayed to
the user.” App. Br. 18-19.
We agree with the Examiner that the art cited for claim 1 also teaches
the additional limitation of claim 8. As explained above, Catlow teaches
modifying process data for only a subset of clips (e.g., clip data 70, 71 of
Figure 5) and only re-processing those clips. See Catlow, col. 7, ll. 53-62:
The processing of the layered clip 60 with the initial clip 50 to
produce the edited clip 61 is unaltered, but since the
processing of the initial clips 50, 51 has been corrected then
Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

13
the edited clip 61 will consequently also be corrected. Thus,
simply by modifying the data identified by the sets of clip data
70, 71, the entire editing scheme is corrected so that the edited
clip 61 (and thus the edited clip 63 and the result clip 64)
include the desired portions of the initial clips 50 and 51
layered together.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding this limitation
disclosed in Catlow.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8. Because claims 16
and 24 are not separately argued with particularity, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims for the same reasons set forth in our
discussion of claim 8 above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
In the July 14, 2009, Final Rejection (at 3-4), the Examiner rejected
claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16 under § 101 as directed to a computer data
signal embodied in a carrier wave, and thus directed to non-statutory subject
matter. Appellants amended the Specification to remove references to
“carrier” and “signal” in paragraph 0023. See Sept. 14, 2009, Amendment
after Final Rej., at 2. Appellants argue that this should have been sufficient
to overcome the rejection. See App. Br. 8. The Examiner’s Answer is silent
as to the § 101 rejection. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16 under § 101.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-16
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed.
Appeal 2011-000992
Application 11/107,435

14
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc