ARRIS Enterprises, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 7, 2021

2019005543 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2021)

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.
14/302,229 06/11/2014 Renxiang Li 23005 1139
21924 7590 01/07/2021
ARRIS Enterprises LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
EXAMINER
TILAHUN, ALAZAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/07/2021 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):
ARRIS.docketing@commscope.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RENXIANG LI, FAISAL ISHTIAQ, STEPHEN P. EMEOTT,
and ANTHONY J. BRASKICH
____________________

Appeal 2019-005543
Application 14/302,229
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest is ARRIS Enterprises, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005543
Application 14/302,229

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method of detecting frames in a video that demarcate a pre-
determined type of video segment within the video, comprising
the steps of:
[A.] identifying, based at least on a probability distribution for
a plurality of visual features of the frames in the video,
candidate marker frames within the video,
[i.] wherein each of the candidate marker frames has a
visual feature set, and
[ii.] wherein each of the candidate marker frames is
visually distinctive based on dissimilarity of the
visual feature set to a statistical model of the video;
[B.] identifying events within the video as input video events;
[C.] grouping the candidate marker frames into a plurality of
groups based on visual similarity to one another;
[D.] computing a collective score for each of the groups based
on temporal proximity of each of the candidate marker
frames in each of the groups to input video events; and
[E.] selecting at least one of the groups based on the collective
scores of marker frames that demarcate the pre-
determined type of video segment.

Appeal 2019-005543
Application 14/302,229

3
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Li US 2003/0063798 A1 Apr, 3, 2003
Wu US 2005/0257151 A1 Nov. 17, 2005
Wang US 2012/0210228 A1 Aug. 16, 2012

REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–12 and 14–20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Li and Wu. Final Act. 6–11.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection.
Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of
the § 103 rejection of claims 2–12 and 14–20 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 13, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Li, Wu, and Wang. Final Act. 12.
The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to
this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merits of the § 103 rejection of claim 13 further herein.

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-005543
Application 14/302,229

4
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss
are dispositive as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s other
contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
A.1.
As reproduced supra, part A of claim 1 requires (emphasis added):
identifying, based at least on a probability distribution for a
plurality of visual features of the frames in the video, candidate
marker frames within the video, wherein each of the candidate
marker frames has a visual feature set, and wherein each of the
candidate marker frames is visually distinctive based on
dissimilarity of the visual feature set to a statistical model of the
video;
A.2.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that the features of part A are
taught in paragraph 75 and 85 of Li. Final Act. 7.
A.3.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
Applicant teaches a different process from Li for identifying
visually distinctive frames. Applicant discloses generating
frame features for every frame in the video asset and creating a
statistical model based on visual features collected from all
frames. Based on this model, by feature values from an
individual frame, its frequency (probability) relative to the rest
of the frames can be determined. Applicant teaches identifying
those visually distinct frames by the fact that they typically have
a very small probability relative to the rest of frames, or are rare.
Accordingly, the proposed combination of Li and Wu fails
to teach [“]identifying, based at least on a probability
distribution for a plurality of visual features of the frames in the
Appeal 2019-005543
Application 14/302,229

5
video, candidate marker frames within the video” [] and
“wherein each of the candidate marker frames has a visual
feature set, and wherein each of the candidate marker frames is
visually distinctive based on dissimilarity of the visual feature set
to a statistical model of the video”, as recited in independent
claim 1.
. . .
To the contrary, in Li’s disclosure, the video content
discussed in the Office Action does not have any pre-determined
type that is bounded or demarcated by marker frames. For
example, the proposed combination of Li and Wu fails to teach
or disclose “identifying, based at least on a probability
distribution for a plurality of visual features of the frames in the
video, candidate marker frames within the video, wherein each
of the candidate marker frames has a visual feature set, and
wherein each of the candidate marker frames is visually
distinctive based on dissimilarity of the visual feature set to a
statistical model of the video” [], as recited in independent claim
1. This feature is absent from Li and Wu.
Appeal Br. 8–9 (panel emphasis added, Appellant’s emphasis omitted).
A.4.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”).
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s
analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately
explain the Examiner’s findings of fact.
Appeal 2019-005543
Application 14/302,229

6
We agree with Appellant that the recited “wherein each of the
candidate marker frames is visually distinctive based on dissimilarity of the
visual feature set” (claim 1, part A) “is absent from Li and Wu.” Appeal Br.
9. We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s argument, that there is
currently insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding
that Li and Wu teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious part A as
required by claim 1.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning
to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.

CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 14–20 103 Li, Wu 1–12, 14–20
13 103 Li, Wu, Wang 13
Overall
Outcome

1–20

REVERSED