Ex Parte Hanson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

12703620 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
12/703,620 02/10/2010 Eric Hanson P8027US1 (119-0389US1) 4490
61947 7590 01/18/2017
Ar>r>le - Rlank Rome.
EXAMINER
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
SOMERS, MARC S
HOUSTON, TX 77002 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 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):
mbrininger @ blankrome. com
hou stonpatents @ blankrome .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC HANSON and JOSHUA DAVID FAGANS
Appeal 2015-005429
Application 12/703,620
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 7—9, 11—21, and 24—27, all the
pending claims in the present application. Claims 5, 6, 10, 22, and 23 are
canceled. See Claim Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to correlating digital media
with complementary content, such a time of capture, or a geographic
location of capture and events occurring either during these times or at these
geographic locations. See Abstract.
Appeal 2015-005429
Application 12/703,620
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for presenting digital
media content, the method comprising:
receiving, by data processing apparatus implemented on
a mobile communication device configured to capture digital images,
a plurality of digital images, a digital image being associated with
image information that includes either a time of capture of the digital
image or a geographic location of capture of the digital image or both;
receiving, by the data processing apparatus implemented
on the mobile communication device, additional information
describing events that occurred either during or substantially near in
time to the times of capture, or at or substantially near the geographic
locations of capture of one or more of the plurality of digital images;
comparing, by the data processing apparatus
implemented on the mobile communication device, the image
information and the additional information to identify one or more
events most closely related to a first one of the digital images;
interpolating, between the identified one or more events
to create an interpolated event for the first digital image; and
associating, by the data processing apparatus
implemented on the mobile communication device, the interpolated
event with the first digital image.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claim 1—4, 7—9, 11—21, and 24—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Singh (US 2007/0127833 Al, published
June 7, 2007) in combination with various other prior art (see Final Act. 3—
24).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—4, 7—9, 11—21, and 24—27
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Singh teaches or suggests
interpolating between the identified one or more events to create an
interpolated event, as set forth in representative claim 1?
2
Appeal 2015-005429
Application 12/703,620
Appellants contend that “the ‘observed positions’ in Singh, i.e.,
positions for which data about the image capture device already exists (and
has been observed), may not be considered the same as, or the equivalent of,
the claimed ‘created interpolated events,’ . . . [as] the claim language makes
it clear that the interpolated event is created” (App. Br. 11). Appellants
further contend that “the adjective ‘Warm’ is not ‘created’ via an
interpolation process . . . Instead, the selection of the adjective ‘Warm’ is
based on applying a pre-existing rule set up in the system” (Reply Br. 6—7).
The Examiner finds that “the interpolated event that Singh teaches is
the value and trend descriptors,” where “a new ambient event is created
based on the analysis of the time series data based on various rules” (Ans. 4)
and where “the interpolated event is the value/trend descriptor that was
created via the summarization/aggregation process of Singh” {id. at 6). We
agree with the Examiner.
Here, the Examiner acknowledges that the other cited references do
not explicitly disclose interpolating, but instead relies upon Singh to disclose
this feature (see Final Act. 4, 10, and 21). As such, we shall look for error in
the Examiner’s interpretation of Singh.
Singh discloses “determining a plurality of ambient conditions
associated with a location of a . . . image captured ... the ambient conditions
existing at a time related to a time of capture . . . aggregating the plurality of
ambient conditions into at least one ambient environment descriptor . . . and
associating the . . . descriptor with the digital image” (see Abstract; see also
194—99). In other words, Singh discloses digital images associated with
time and ambient conditions information whereby the plurality of ambient
3
Appeal 2015-005429
Application 12/703,620
conditions, i.e., raw data, are aggregated to create an ambient environment
descriptor which is associated with the image. It is Singh’s creation of the
ambient environment descriptor that the Examiner is relying on to teach the
claimed created interpolated event (see Ans. 4—6).
We disagree with Appellants’ aforementioned interpretation that in
Singh “the adjective ‘Warm’ is not ‘created’ via an interpolation process”
(see Reply Br. 6—7). For instance, Singh creates the environment descriptor
by aggregating the plurality of ambient conditions into at least one ambient
environment descriptor (see Abstract) and using a lookup table to apply a
descriptor based on this aggregated value (see 178). The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that the ordinary and customary definition of “interpolating”
includes the action of introducing or inserting among other things (see Ans.
4). Here, Singh introduces a descriptor (based on aggregating the plurality
of ambient conditions) and associates the same with the digital image. We
find that merely because Singh uses a lookup table to apply a value, i.e., an
adjective such as “Warm,” as the descriptor based on aggregation rules (see
Singh 178 and Abstract), does not take away from the fact that Singh
aggregates the raw data representing the ambient conditions first and then
uses this value to select a descriptor from the lookup table. Appellants fail
to persuasively distinguish Singh’s aggregating step which creates the
descriptor from the claimed interpolating.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 11, 18, and 24 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. See
4
Appeal 2015-005429
Application 12/703,620
App. Br. 8—14. We therefore also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2—4, 7—9, 11—21, and 24—27.
DECISION
We affirm each of the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections.
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