Ex Parte Adams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2017

13614914 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2017)

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.
13/614,914 09/13/2012 Matthew ADAMS 1000-13996 3398
34904 7590 02/28/2017
CANON U.S.A. INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIVISION
15975 ALTON PARKWAY
IRVINE, CA 92618-3731
EXAMINER
KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2017 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):
mklein@cusa.canon.com
skalmino v @cusa.canon.com
IPDocketing @cusa.canon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW ADAMS and SIMON EVANS
Appeal 2016-003758
Application 13/614,914
Technology Center 2100
Before: JEFFREY S. SMITH, SHARON FENICK, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims 1
and 3—6, which constitute all pending claims. Final Act. 1; Claims App’x.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-003758
Application 13/614,914
CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellants, their invention relates to the organization
and display of digital content, and more particularly to the association of
metadata with media objects, such as photos and videos. Spec. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below with its disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method of associating metadata
with a media object, the method comprising:
assigning a unique identifier to a media object;
separately publishing the media object to a plurality of
social networks;
obtaining a plurality of media-object identifiers from the
plurality of social networks and storing the plurality of media-
object identifiers in association with the unique identifier,
wherein obtaining the plurality of media-object identifiers from
the plurality of social networks includes, for each social network
of the plurality of social networks to which the media object has
been published, obtaining a media-object identifier of the
plurality of media-object identifiers by which the media object is
identified on that social network,
retrieving, from each social network of the plurality of
social networks, metadata that is stored on the social network in
association with the media object using the media-object
identifier of the plurality of media-object identifiers by which the
media object is identified on that social network;
storing the retrieved metadata in association with the
media object; and
displaying the retrieved metadata to a user with an
indication of the social network from which the metadata has
been retrieved.
REFERENCES
Kelly
Butterfield
Arturi
US 2006/0004914 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
US 2006/0242178 A1 Oct. 26, 2006
US 2012/0197970 A1 Aug. 2, 2012
2
Appeal 2016-003758
Application 13/614,914
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 4—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kelly and Arturi. Final Act. 2—6.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kelly, Arturi, and Butterfield. Final
Act. 6—8.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination of Kelly and Arturi does not
teach or suggest the limitations in claim 1 of “obtaining a plurality of media
object identifiers from the plurality of social networks” and “for each social
network of the plurality of social networks to which the media object has
been published, obtaining a media-object identifier of the plurality of media
object identifiers by which the media object is identified on that social
network,” and corresponding limitations recited by claims 5 and 6. Br. 15—
18. As background, Figures 3 and 4 of Appellants’ Specification, shown
below, illustrate these disputed limitations (Br. 5):
3
Appeal 2016-003758
Application 13/614,914
Fig. 3
UID Social network base API id Type
1 htips://graphJacebook,com/ 115 downloaded
1 http ://api iii ckr.com/ 123 published
1 https //www. goog leap is. com/ 123 published
...
Fig. 4
4
Appeal 2016-003758
Application 13/614,914
Figure 3 is a flowchart that describes the process by which a
server maintains a list of social network servers holding a copy of a media
object. Spec. 2. Figure 4 illustrates an association table listing the social
networks holding a copy of a media object. Id. at 3.
As shown in Figure 3 above, a server (the media server) receives a
media object and gives it a unique identifier (UID). Spec. Fig. 3, steps 310—
320. When the server publishes the media object on a social network, the
server obtains an id from the social network for that object (social network
identifier). Spec. Fig. 3, steps 350-360. As shown in Figure 4 above, the
server associates UID 1 for an object with the obtained social network ids
for the same object (i.e., with id 115 from Facebook, id 123 from Flickr, and
id 123 from Google.).
The Examiner finds that Kelly teaches obtaining a plurality of media-
object identifiers from a local area network (LAN) and a wide area network
(WAN) (Final Act 3, 7—8) and Arturi teaches the use of social networks and
the publication of media objects on such networks. Final Act. 5—6. The
Examiner finds the combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
Final Act. 3, 5—8
Kelly’s LAN and WAN networks are shown as items 51 and 52,
respectively, in Figure 1 of Kelly, shown below:
5
Appeal 2016-003758
Application 13/614,914
Figure 1 is a schematic depiction of a computer system used in
practicing an exemplary embodiment of Kelly’s disclosed method. Kelly |
15.
Appellants argue that Kelly does not teach or suggest obtaining a
plurality of media-object identifiers from its LAN and WAN networks
because Kelly stores its media objects and associated metadata in a
centralized database (e.g., network manager). Br. 18, citing Kelly Tflf 49, 96,
and 183 (see database system 55 above). Therefore, Appellants argue that
Kelly’s LAN and WAN networks would by necessity use the same media-
object identifier (e.g., to retrieve that object from the database) for the same
media object. Id. On this record, we are persuaded by this argument. The
Examiner finds that, in Kelly, a user in communicating with the network
manager would include a network identifier that identifies the user’s
6
Appeal 2016-003758
Application 13/614,914
particular network environment and that the network manager would store
an indication of who created, uploaded, or sent the media object. Ans. 6—7.
Even so, however, it is not apparent why the user or the network manager
would use different media object identifiers for a media object for the LAN
or WAN networks when the media objects for both networks are stored by
the same network manager.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 1,
5, and 6 or of dependent claims 3 and 4.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1 and 3—6.
REVERSED
7