Ex Parte GordonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 26, 201712978647 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation