Ex Parte Gordon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2017

12978647 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 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.
12/978,647 12/27/2010 Raz Gordon 1561
7590
Collage Analytics LLC
1652 48th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11204
01/26/2017 EXAMINER
OHBA, MELLISSA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2017 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 RAZ GORDON
Appeal 2016-000075
Application 12/978,6471
Technology Center 2100
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Raz Gordon (Appellant) seeks our review under 35U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7—13. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM but denominate the affirmed rejections as a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION.
1 The Appellant identifies Collage Analytics LLC, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000075
Application 12/978,647
THE INVENTION
Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
7. A method comprising:
maintaining in a computer system information associated with a
plurality of content elements, each content element being associated in
the computer system with a date;
identifying in the computer system a document having one or
more content elements contained within the document, wherein at
least one content element contained in the document is similar to a
corresponding content element maintained in the computer system;
and
associating a date in the computer system with the document
based on a date associated with [the] corresponding content element,
wherein the computer system is configured to implement the
method.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Ohkubo US 2003/0184653 A1 Oct. 2,2003
Patterson US 7,702,618 B1 Apr. 20, 2010
Das US 7,831,599 B2 Nov. 9,2010
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Das and Ohkubo.
2. Claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Das, Ohkubo, and Patterson.
2
Appeal 2016-000075
Application 12/978,647
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Das and Ohkubo?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Das, Ohkubo, and Patterson?
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Das and Ohkubo.
All the claims require a computer system that, at least, (a) maintains
therein a date associated with each of a plurality of content elements, (b)
identifies therein a document with one or more content elements of which at
least one is similar to a content element being maintained, and (c) associates
therein a date with the document based on a date associated with a
corresponding content element. See App. Br. 10 (independent claim 7). The
other independent claims 1 and 4 have a more limited scope.
The Examiner takes the position that Das discloses steps (a) and (b)
and Ohkubo discloses step (c). See Non-Final Action 8. According to the
Examiner,
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Das et al.,
by the teachings of Ohkubo et al. because associating a date in the
computer system with the document based on a date associated with
corresponding content element, wherein the computer system is
3
Appeal 2016-000075
Application 12/978,647
configured to implement the method would provide an efficient way to
classify image data sets according to events during which the image
data sets were obtained (See Ohkubo et al., paragraphs 8-9).
Non-Final Action 9.
Das is directed to classifying images in a database. The following
passage from Das summarizes the process:
Referring now to FIG. 1, in the method a plurality of new images
are combined into an existing database of chronologically ordered
images, which are classified into event groups based upon a time
difference threshold, and within event groups into event subgroups
based upon a similarity measure. Features of the new images are
assessed (10) and the new images are ordered or grouped (12) into
clusters based upon those features. A representative image is selected
(14) in each cluster. A segment of the database chronologically
overlapping the new images is designated (16). Sets of one or more
retrieved database images similar to each of the representative images
are identified by querying (18) the database. Different subgroups
including the retrieved images are associated (20) with each cluster and
the new images are assigned (22) to associated subgroups.
Das 5:51—65.
Das does not expressly disclose the claim terms “document” and
“content element.” In order to rely on Das as prior art, the Examiner would
have had to construe the claim term “document” as encompassing Das’s new
images and the claim phrase “content element” as encompassing Das’s “one
or more image features of each of the new images.” Das 7:1—2. This is the
Appellant’s understanding of the Examiner’s position as well. See App. Br.
4 (“In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner reads ‘images’ in Das as document in
claim 1 and ‘features of the images’ in Das as content elements in claim 1.”).
But the Appellant does not appear to have raised any challenge to the
Examiner’s claim construction. As a result, we take the Examiner’s claim
construction as accepted and analyze the prior art rejection consistent with it.
4
Appeal 2016-000075
Application 12/978,647
Das further discloses that “[t]he chronological order of the new
images is first ascertained. This can be done by extracting metadata
associated with the new images.” Das 6:58—60. Accordingly thereby, new
images are necessarily associated with a date. Thus, given the Examiner’s
claim construction, Das discloses a document with an associated date.
Das further discloses that “[a]fter the new images are received, one or
more image features of each of the new images are determined. . . . The new
images are ordered/grouped into clusters based upon the image features.”
Das 7:1—10. Since the new images are necessarily associated with a date,
the image features of each of the new images must also be necessarily
associated with a date. Thus, given the Examiner’s claim construction, Das
discloses content elements with an associated date.
It follows from these Das disclosures that Das discloses a computer
system that, at least, (a) maintains therein a date associated with each of a
plurality of content elements.
Turning now to whether the prior art discloses (b) identifying a
document with one or more content elements of which at least one is similar
to a content element being maintained, in that regard, the Examiner relies on
the “abstract; column 1, lines 26-49; column 5, lines 51-67; column 6, lines
1-57, wherein ‘similarity measure’ is read on ‘similarity threshold’” of Das.
Non-Final Action 8 (emphasis omitted).
The disclosure at column 6, lines 44-48 of Das is especially relevant:
Referring to FIG. 3, the reliability of the method is improved if
chronological order information relating to the new images is used. In
this case, features of the new images are determined (210), as discussed
below, and the chronological order of the new images is ascertained
(211).
5
Appeal 2016-000075
Application 12/978,647
As explained later in Das,
After the new images are received, one or more image features
of each of the new images are determined. The determination can be
manual, semi-automatic, or automatic. It is highly preferred that the
feature or features used are the same as those upon which the similarity
measure is based.
Das 7:1—5. “The new images are ordered/grouped into clusters based
upon the image features.” Das 7:9-10. Given Das’s disclosure of
determining similar image features between new images, it would appear
that Das necessarily discloses (b) identifying a document with one or more
content elements of which at least one is similar to a content element being
maintained.
We should also point out that Appellant has not addressed the above-
cited Das disclosures that the Examiner relied upon in rejecting claim 7.
The Appeal Brief focuses on claim 1, not claim 7, which is broader in scope.
Therefore, notwithstanding we find Das necessarily discloses step (b), the
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s reliance on Das as
disclosing (b) identifying a document with one or more content elements of
which at least one is similar to a content element being maintained.
We now turn to the question of whether the cited prior art shows or
would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to a computer system that (c)
associates therein a date with the document based on a date associated with a
corresponding content element. In that regard, if, as we have found above,
that given the Examiner’s claim construction, Das discloses a document (i.e.,
new image) and content elements (i.e., image features of the new image)
with an associated date and a document (i.e., another new image) with one
or more content elements (i.e., image features of the another new image) of
6
Appeal 2016-000075
Application 12/978,647
which at least one is similar to a content element (i.e., image features of the
new image) being maintained is identified, then it would appear to follow
that Das necessarily (c) associates a date with the identified document based
on a date associated with a corresponding content element.
We recognize that the Examiner relied on Ohkubo, rather than Das, as
evidence that step (c) is disclosed in the prior art. See Non-Final Action 8—
9. But we find that reliance on Das alone is sufficient.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Das leads one of ordinary skill
in the art to what is claimed and therefore we affirm the rejection of claim 7.
Our reasoning departs from that of the Examiner. Accordingly, we
denominate the affirmance of the rejection of claim 7 as a new ground of
rejection.
We will affirm the rejection of claim 1 for the same reasons. Claim 1
differs from claim 7 in that the document associated with a first date is
associated with a second date associated with a corresponding content
element identical or similar to a content element in the document. In light
of the fact that claim 1 places no limitation on the claim terms “first date”
and “second date” and that the Specification provides no definition
constraining the claim phrases “first date” and “second date,” the claim
phrases “first date” and “second date” reasonably broadly cover the same
day. Given that construction, our reasoning above with respect to Das alone
leading one of ordinary skill to the subject matter claimed in claim 7 applies
here as to the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 4 parallels claim 1 and therefore we will affirm the rejection of
claim 4 for the reasons discussed.
7
Appeal 2016-000075
Application 12/978,647
The Appellant does not address claims 10 and 11, which depend from
claims 1 and 4, respectively. These claims call for the content element in the
document to be similar in accordance with a similarity threshold to the
corresponding content element. We find this to be disclosed in Das. See our
discussion above with respect to step (b).
Our reasoning departs from that of the Examiner. Accordingly, we
denominate the affirmance of the rejection of claims 1,4, 10, and 11 as a
new ground of rejection.
The rejection of claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Das, Ohkubo, and Patterson.
These claims call for a search request for documents within a
specified date range and generating in the computer system a search results
list, wherein the search results list includes the document.
The Examiner relied on Patterson. See Non-Final Action 10.
The Appellant argues that Patterson does not ‘“provide the capability
to index multiple versions or instances of a document for archiving’ as
argued by the Examiner.” App. Br. 6. “Patterson does not teach, nor is it
logical to assert, that a ‘search by date’ function would enable the ‘indexing
multiple versions of a document for archiving.’” App. Br. 6.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive as to error in the rejection
because it is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. The claims
make no mention of “indexing multiple versions of a document for
archiving.” All that the claims require is receiving a search request for
documents within a specified date range and generating a search results list
that includes the document wherein the date associated with the document is
8
Appeal 2016-000075
Application 12/978,647
within the specified date range. Given that Das necessarily (c) associates a
date with the identified document based on a date associated with a
corresponding content element, a simple search for the document within a
specified date range via, for example, Das’s database, would necessarily
yield the document wherein the date associated with the document is within
the specified date range.
The rejection is sustained. However, our reasoning incorporates the
reasoning with repoect to the independent claims which departs from that of
the Examiner. Thus here, too, the reasonsing departs from that of the
Examiner. Accordingly, we denominate the affirmance of the rejection of
claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 as a new ground of rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Das and Ohkubo is affirmed but denominated as a
new ground.
The rejection of claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Das, Ohkubo, and Patterson is affirmed but
denominated as a new ground.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4 and 7—13 is
affirmed, but the affirmed rejections under § 103 are denominated as new
grounds of rejection.
9
Appeal 2016-000075
Application 12/978,647
NEW GROUND
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered
by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded
to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED: 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
10