Ex Parte Bergman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2018

13370868 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

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.
13/370,868 02/10/2012 Lawrence D. Bergman YOR920110723US1 4443
98841 7590 01/10/2018
Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP
P.O. Box 381
Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381
EXAMINER
SINGH, AMRESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAWRENCE D. BERGMAN, RAVINDRANATH KONURU, JIE
LU, and MOUSHUMI SHARMIN
Appeal 2017-009403
Application 13/370,8681
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-009403
Application 13/370,868
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ described and claimed invention relates generally to a
system and techniques for displaying relevant images obtained from a search
of a digital object collection in the context of additional images from the
same media objects from which the relevant images were obtained. See
Spec. 1:21—24.2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitations emphasized)'.
1. A method comprising:
searching, in response to a query, a digital object
collection comprising a plurality of digital objects having
sequences of images;
obtaining a plurality of search result images from the
sequences of images in the plurality of digital objects;
processing, individually, each of the plurality of search
result images subsequent to obtaining the plurality of search
result images, wherein the processing of a given one of the
plurality of search result images comprises:
applying a selection strategy to a respective one of
the digital objects from where the given one of the
plurality of search result images was obtained; and
obtaining, using the selection strategy, at least one
local context image from the respective one of the digital
objects, wherein the at least one local context image is
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed June 15, 2016
(“Final Act.”), Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Jan. 12, 2017 (“App. Br.”) and
Reply Brief filed June 22, 2017 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed May 4, 2017, and the original Specification filed Feb. 10, 2012
(“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-009403
Application 13/370,868
different than the given one of the plurality of search result
images; and
displaying on a screen of a computer interface,
simultaneously, the plurality of search result images and the
plurality of local context images, wherein the search result
images are displayed in order of relevance to the query, wherein
the local context images are displayed at positions associated
with respective ones of the search result images.
App. Br. 17, Claims App’x.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3, 9, 11—13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2015/0161217 Al; published
June 11, 2015) (“Zhang”), in view of Terheggen et al.
(US 2009/0254643 Al; published Oct. 8, 2009) (“Terheggen”), and further
in view of Xu et al. (US 2012/0076414 Al; published Mar. 29, 2012)
(“Xu”).
Claims 4—8, 10, 14—17, and 19-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Terheggen,
further in view of Xu, and further in view of Huang et al.
(US 2012/0197857 Al; published Aug. 2, 2012) (“Huang”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 9-15) and Reply Brief (see
Reply Br. 9—17), and are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Unless
otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2—13), and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—7), and we concur with
3
Appeal 2017-009403
Application 13/370,868
the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief.
Rejection of Claims 1, 9—10, and 18—20 under § 103(a)
Appellants argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or
suggest “processing, individually, each of the plurality of search result
images,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 11 and 18. See App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 12.
More specifically, Appellants argue Zhang teaches a display of a set of
images related to a selected search result, where the related images are
determined using previous user selections. See App. Br. 12; see Reply
Br. 13. As argued by Appellants, modifying the teaching of Zhang, as
suggested by the Examiner, to process, individually, each of the images in a
search result would render Zhang inoperable for its intended purpose,
because the recorded information (i.e., queries and selected images) used in
determining the related images would be eliminated. See App. Br. 12—13;
see Reply Br. 13—14.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Contrary to Appellants’
argument, the Examiner’s finding that Zhang teaches “processing,
individually, each of the plurality of search result images,” as recited in
claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 11 and 18, did not rely on a
modification of the functionality taught by Zhang. Instead, as the Examiner
correctly found, Zhang explicitly teaches processing each selected search
result individually and causing a set of related images to be displayed. See
Ans. 2—3 (citing Zhang| 18). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
4
Appeal 2017-009403
Application 13/370,868
combination of cited references teaches the aforementioned limitation of
claim 1, and similar claim limitations of claims 11 and 18.
Appellants also argue the combination of cited references fails to
teach or suggest “displaying on a screen of a computer interface,
simultaneously, the plurality of search result images and the plurality of
local context images, wherein the search result images are displayed in order
of relevance to the query, wherein the local context images are displayed at
positions associated with respective ones of the search result images,”
(italics and bolding omitted) as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in
claims 11 and 18. See App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 14. More
specifically, Appellants argue the proposed combination of Zhang,
Terheggen, and Xu is limited by the teachings of Terheggen, such that the
search results include all of the images of the underlying document. As also
argued by Appellants, Xu fails to teach displaying a local context image
because Xu merely teaches a filter of candidate images rather than a local
context image. See App. Br. 13—14; see also Reply Br. 14—15.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellants’ arguments
attack the references individually and do not address the Examiner’s
rationale supporting the rejection. More specifically, the Examiner relied
upon Zhang, not Terheggen, for teaching the claimed “plurality of search
result images.” See Final Act. 3^4 (citing Zhang 118). Further, the
Examiner relied upon Zhang, not Xu, for teaching the plurality of local
context images. See Final Act. 3^4 (citing Zhang || 27—28, 30). One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d
5
Appeal 2017-009403
Application 13/370,868
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of cited references teaches the aforementioned limitation of
claim 1, and the similar limitations of claims 11 and 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,11 and
18 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9—10 and 19—20, which depend from one of
claims 1 and 26, and which are not argued separately.
Rejection of Claims 2—8 and 12—17 under § 103(a)
Appellants further argue the combination of cited references fails to
teach or suggest “distinguishing the search result images on the screen of the
computer interface from the local context images, wherein appearances of
the search result images are visually and spatially distinguished,” (italics and
bolding omitted) as recited in claim 2, and similarly recited in claim 12. See
App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 16. More specifically, Appellants argue
Zhang teaches displaying a selected search image with related images, and
thus, Zhang merely teaches displaying related images spatially remote from
the selected image, as opposed to displaying related images that are both
spatially and visually distinguished from the selected image. See App. Br.
14—15; see also Reply Br. 17.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the
Examiner that Zhang’s selected search result teaches the claimed “search
result image[s],” notwithstanding that a user has selected the search result.
See Ans. 3. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Zhang teaches visually
and spatially distinguishing the selected search result from the related
images (see Final Act. 5), as Appellants fail to proffer a definition of
6
Appeal 2017-009403
Application 13/370,868
“visually and spatially distinguished,” or other argument, that distinguishes
the claim term from the display taught by Zhang. While Appellants’
Specification provide examples of search results that are visually and
spatially distinguished from local context images displayed on a screen (see
e.g., Spec. 9:1—6 (describing search result images that “are visually
distinguished from the local context images by having distinctive borders”)),
we refuse to import features disclosed in the Specification that are not part of
the claim. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be
aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important
not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 12
for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3—8 and 12—17, which depend from one of claims 2 and
12, and which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7