Ex parte IOKA et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 8, 1998

07904912 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 8, 1998)

Attorney docket no. JA991-523. The application was1
filed 26 June 1992. Appellants claim the benefit of Japanese
patent application 3-242329, filed 29 August 1991, but have
not provided a certified priority document.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
This opinion (1) was not written for publication and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MIKIHIRO IOKA
and MASATO KUROKAWA
____________
Appeal No. 96-1328
Application No. 07/904,9121
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before CALVERT, KRASS, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
BACKGROUND
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1-11, all of the pending claims. We
reverse.
Appeal No. 96-1328 Page 2
Application No. 07/904,912
The application is entitled "Motion picture query system
using abstract exemplary motions of a pointing device".
Independent claims 9 and 10 illustrate the scope of the
claimed subject matter:
9. A method for retrieving a desired motion picture
scene stored in a motion picture processing system
that includes means for storing motion
specifications defining motions of objects appearing
in stored motion picture scenes, and a device for
inputting a desired query motion by tracing a path
with said device as a function of time, wherein said
method comprises the steps of:
(a) generating a query motion specification in
response to a change in position of said device;
(b) comparing the generated query motion
specification with stored motion specifications to
identify matching specifications; and
(c) accessing and displaying stored motion
picture scenes associated with stored motion
specifications that have been determined in step (b)
to match the query motion specification.
10. An input system for inputting a query motion as
a query condition for retrieving a desired portion
of a stored motion picture, comprising:
(a) a device for inputting motion data defining
a query motion;
(b) means for displaying a scroll bar having a
length and an end position and representing the
query motion, with the end position of the scroll
bar indicating a starting time of said query motion
and the length of the scroll bar indicating a
duration of said query motion,
(c) means for modifying the end position and
length of said scroll bar; and
Appeal No. 96-1328 Page 3
Application No. 07/904,912
(d) means, responsive to modification of the
end position or length of said scroll bar, for
modifying motion data corresponding to said scroll
bar.
Although all of the independent claims contain elements
subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112[6], neither Appellants nor the
examiner has identified corresponding elements in the
specification or their equivalents.
On appeal, the examiner maintains rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 on the basis of the following references:
Ochi 4,580,782 8 Apr. 1986
Watanabe 5,103,305 7 Apr. 1992
filed 26 Sep. 1990
Mills et al. (Mills) 5,237,648 17 Aug. 1993
filed 8 June 1990
Specifically, the examiner rejects claims 1-9 over the
combination of Ochi and Watanabe and claims 10 and 11 over the
combination of Mills and Watanabe. Appellants have grouped
the claims according to these rejections for the purposes of
this appeal. The examiner has withdrawn all rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 112.
Ochi discloses memory mapping schemes for one-dimensional
memory system for generating images to display during, e.g.,
video games.
Appeal No. 96-1328 Page 4
Application No. 07/904,912
Watanabe discloses a moving object detection system for
discerning a moving object in a given environment as part of,
e.g., a robotic vision system.
Mills discloses a video editing system and a technique
for directly manipulating video frame images to edit clips of
video information.
DISCUSSION
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). We do not find the examiner's interpretation of these
claims to be reasonable. He has ignored, without explanation,
preamble language and elements subject to section 112[6]. As
a consequence, the subject matter that the examiner deems to
have been obvious has little relationship to the subject
matter disclosed in the specification and set forth in the
claims as it would be understood by one skilled in the art.
One skilled in the art would understand the claims to be
necessarily directed to a motion image retrieval system using
motions for queries. Nothing in the cited art individually or
in combination teaches or suggests this subject matter.
Appeal No. 96-1328 Page 5
Application No. 07/904,912
DECISION
The examiner's rejections of claims 1-11 under
section 103 are
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1328 Page 6
Application No. 07/904,912
JACK M. ARNOLD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT
IBM CORPORATION
PO BOX 218
YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, NY 10598