Appeal No. 2006-1591
Application No. 09/866,394
Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17 through 24, 26 through 33 and 35 through 38 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dimitrova in view of Wang.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the briefs and the answer for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17 through 24, 26 through 33 and 35
through 38.
According to the examiner’s findings (final rejection, pages 2 and 3), the Dimitrova
publication discloses all of the steps and structure of claims 1, 11, 21 and 30 with the exception
of selecting “representative keyframe images for each superhistogram to create a compact visual
summary of said video material, wherein said representative images include at least one of (1)
the first image in each family histogram, (2) the most meaningful image in each superhistogram,
(3) a randomly chosen image, and (4) an image that is closest to the cluster center.” The
teachings of Wang were relied on by the examiner because they describe summarizing video
sequences to create compact visual summaries of video material by “selecting representative
keyframe images from each group of related scenes to create a compact visual summary of the
video material (summarizing a video sequence by taking one representative frame from each set
of related scenes with similar average color histograms, to represent the set to enable the user to
view a large sampling of video sequence images) (Wang et al.: column 1, lines 51-67 and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007