Ex Parte Appelman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2015

12186270 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/186,270
100692 7590
AOL Inc./Finnegan
FILING DATE
08/05/2008
12/16/2015
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Barry Appelman
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10587.0125-00000 1874
EXAMINER
ALLISON, ANDRAE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2015 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRY APPELMAN,
SHARON M. PERLMUTTER, and
KEREN 0. PERLMUTTER
Appeal2014-000042
Application 12/186,270
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXOJ\J, ~4dministratfve Patent Jitdge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-000042
Application 12/186,270
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3, 5, 7-9, 17-20, and 114--122. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to generating social network information by
analyzing images (Spec. i-f 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method of building a social
network based on content in images, the method comprising:
using, at least one processor, to identify a first person in
an electronic image;
identifying a second person related to the electronic
image;
creating first social network information relating the first
person to the second person;
storing, in a storage device, the first social network
information;
identifying second social network information relating
the first person with a third person; and
creating third social network information relating the
second person to the third person based on the relation of the
second person to the first person in the first social network
information and the relation of the third person to the first
person in the second social network information.
2
Appeal2014-000042
Application 12/186,270
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zhu
Gokturk
US 7,451,161 Bl
US 7,519,200 Bl
Nov. 11, 2008
Apr. 14, 2009
Huang et al., "Agent-Mediated Personal Photo Sharing," Int'l Journal of
Electronic Business Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 11-18 (2007)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections 1:
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 17-20, and 114--122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang and Gokturk.
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35U.S.C§103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, Gokturk, and Zhu.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Huang and Gokturk discloses
all the limitations of claim 1, including that Huang teaches "creating third
social network information relating the second person to the third person ...
based on the relation of the second person to the first person in the first
social network information and the relation of the third person to the first
person in the second social network information" (Ans. 5---6). Appellants
contend Huang fails to teach this limitation (App. Br. 11-14). We agree
with Appellants.
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph (Ans. 4).
3
Appeal2014-000042
Application 12/186,270
Huang describes a social network construction with nodes
representing people in the network, and edges representing a familiarity
relationship between people (Huang, sec. 4.2; Fig. 3). However, we agree
with Appellants that Huang does not disclose the degree of familiarity
between any two people is based upon other familiarity relationships (see
App. Br. 11-12). That is, the degree of familiarity between, for example,
Chiyau and Left in Huang's Figure 3, is 0.49, but Huang does not disclose
this number is based upon the respective degrees of familiarity of 0.66
between Skyish and Left, and 0.85 between Skyish and Chiyau (Reply Br.
3-5). Rather, "the relationship between any two people correlate[s] with the
frequency that they appear in the same picture" (Huang, sec. 4.2). In other
words, Huang's degrees of familiarity are based upon direct relationships.
The Examiner also cites Huang's Figure 2, which shows "FOAF-
based photo metadata" where the "foaf:knows property is used to capture the
relationships among people" (Huang, sec. 4.1; Fig. 2). However, FOAF
(Friend-of-a-Friend) is simply the name of an "ontology, which defines a
simple vocabulary designed to describe people and their relationships"
(Huang, sec. 4.1 ). The use of FOAF in Huang does not show actually
creating social network information on the basis of two people being friends
of a mutual friend. Rather, Huang's Figure 2 merely shows direct
relationships without specifying the basis of the "foaf:knows" property of
any given relationship between two people.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Huang
discloses "creating third social network information relating the second
person to the third person based on the relation of the second person to the
first person in the first social network information and the relation of the
4
Appeal2014-000042
Application 12/186,270
third person to the first person in the second social network information," as
recited in claim 1.
Additionally, to the extent the Examiner has relied upon Zhu to
bolster the rejection of claim 1 (see Ans. 14-15), we note that"[ w ]here a
reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a 'minor
capacity,' there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including
the reference in the statement of the rejection." In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341,
n.3 (CCPA 1970). Therefore, we do not consider Zhu's teachings in
determining whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 1 7 and 122 which
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 18-20,
and 114-121 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 17-20, and 114-
122 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3,
5, 7-9, 17-20, and 114-122 is reversed.
REVERSED
dw
5