Ex Parte Biller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13090723 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/090,723 04/20/2011
79980 7590 09/28/2016
Keohane & D'Alessandro
1881 Western Avenue Suite 180
Albany, NY 12203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexis S. Biller
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.
GB920100088US 1 3076
EXAMINER
SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
drubbone@kdiplaw.com
Docket@Kdiplaw.com
lcronk@kdiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXIS S. BILLER and STEVEN A. VANDAMME
Appeal2015-007382
Application 13/090,723
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20. Claims 4, 11, and 18
are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention generally relates to "location-based
annotation/tagging of electronic data such as images and the like.
Specifically, embodiments of the present invention relate to an energy
efficient approach for detecting location and tagging corresponding data
accordingly." Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
Appeal2015-007382
Application 13/090,723
1. A method for annotating electronic data with
geographic locations, comprising:
rotating a device around an axis as the device captures a
set of photographic images;
determining a positional difference in a single plane of
three planes from a reference point corresponding to an
unspecified geographic position of a first photographic image of
the set of photographic images, by an accelerometer associated
with the device as the device rotates around the axis, the
positional difference being based on a series of movements away
from the reference point;
after the determining, downloading the set of photographic
images to a computer;
modifying the downloaded set of photographic images;
after the modifying of the downloaded set of photographic
images, manually specifying a first geographic location of the
reference point;
after the first geographic location is specified, determining
a second geographic location of a second photographic image of
the set of photographic images based on the second geographic
location and the determined positional difference; and
annotating the second photographic image with the second
geographic location.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O'Connor et al. (US 2009/0327229,
published Dec. 31, 2009) and Waller et al. (2001/0031640 Al, published
Oct. 18, 2001). Final Act. 3-12.
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over
O'Connor and Waller.
2
Appeal2015-007382
Application 13/090,723
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in finding that 0 'Connor
teaches or suggests "determining a positional difference in a single plane of
three planes from a reference point corresponding to an unspecified
geographic position of a first photographic image of the set of photographic
images ... " App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br 2; see also App. Br. 6-8 (presenting
similar arguments for claims 8 and 15). According to Appellants,
"O'Connor only shows determining a location of a (relative) photo based on
a known location of another (fixed) photo. So the geographic location of the
fixed photo is known while the geographic location of the next photo is
unknown." App. Br. 4.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. Paragraph 25 of the
Specification, which Appellants cite as supporting the determining limitation
of claim 1 (see App. Br. 2), explains that
the initial geographic location can be unknown as long as the
delta location and another defined point can be determined.
Specifically, the use of delta locations permits the user to
describe a single reference point for the remaining positions to
be calculated. Therefore a group of photographs only requires
one precise (good) geographic location for all the remaining
positions to be calculated from the delta references.
Spec. i-f 25 (emphasis added). In other words, the Specification supports the
Examiner's interpretation that one unknown point may be calculated from
another defined point.
This is precisely what O'Connor discloses. Namely, O'Connor
describes picture files with unknown locations and determining a positional
difference from those unknown or unspecified reference points. Final Act. 3
(citing O'Connor i-fi-131, 34). Nothing in the claim precludes the recited
determining from using a known geographical point in addition to the
3
Appeal2015-007382
Application 13/090,723
unknown or unspecified reference point. 1 As such, we are not persuaded
that 0' Connor fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. 2
Appellants additionally argue that O'Connor's time-stamp is non-
analogous to the recited reference point. App. Br. 5; see also App. Br. 6-8
(presenting similar arguments for claims 8 and 15). As discussed above, the
Examiner does not rely on the time-stamp for the recited reference point. As
such, this argument is unpersuasive.
Similarly unavailing is Appellants' argument that Waller also fails to
teach the recited unspecified geographic position. App. Br. 5; see also App.
Br. 6-8 (presenting similar arguments for claims 8 and 15). As discussed
above, the Examiner finds that O'Connor teaches this limitation. "[O]ne
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references." See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
1 We note that O'Connor teaches manually entering a location reference and
determining additional geographical locations based upon the position
difference as also required by claim 1. See, e.g., Final Act. 4 (citing i-fi-1 4, 5,
23, 24, 26) (relying on O'Connor's disclosure that "the user can input a new
location for the 'correct location' of a picture file, and then upon that new
location being processed the other pictures determine their own location
based on the known, modified location of the first picture, and the other
pictures relation position wise to that first picture.").
2 Additionally, we note that, upon further prosecution, the Examiner should
consider whether the Specification sufficiently supports, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph (pre-AIA), the recited "unspecified geographic
position."
4
Appeal2015-007382
Application 13/090,723
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 as well as claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, and
20 not argued with particularity, as unpatentable over O'Connor and Waller.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17,
and 19-20.
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
5