Ex Parte Kacker

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 25, 2009

10302304 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte DHIRAJ KACKER
_____________

Appeal 2009-0825
Application 10/302,304
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided:1 March 25, 2009
_______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and KARL D.
EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the rejection of
claims 1 through 20.
We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-0825
Application 10/302,304

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed toward an image based system which
computes and stores image-ranking values based upon image characteristics.
See page 2 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computer-assisted method comprising:
receiving a digital image from a user;
obtaining one or more image characteristics for the digital
image;
representing the one or more image characteristics as a vector in
a multi-dimensional space;
mapping the vector in the multi-dimensional space to an image-
ranking value along one dimension; and
storing the image-ranking value as a keyword having a
numerical value in association with the digital image.

REFERENCES

Barber US 5,751,286 May 12, 1998

Covell US 2003/0068100 A1 Apr. 10, 2003
(filed Jul. 17, 2002)

Loui US 6,636,648 B2 Oct. 21, 2003
(filed Jul. 2, 1999)

Acharya US 6,681,060 B2 Jan. 20, 2004
(filed Mar. 23, 2001)

Appeal 2009-0825
Application 10/302,304

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Covell, Acharya, and Loui.
The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 9 of the Answer.2
The Examiner has rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Covell, Acharya, Loui, and Barber. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 9 and 10 of the Answer.

ISSUES
Rejection of claims 1 through 4, and 6 through 20.
Appellant argues on pages 6 through 9 of the Brief3 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 204 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellant argues that Covell does not teach
storing the image-ranking value as a keyword having a numerical value
associated with the image as claimed. Appellant asserts that in Covell’s
system the images are grouped based upon terms such as preferred,
marginal, and poor, whereas in the invention “[i]mages are not categorized
into groups, but instead, are individually stored with keywords.” Brief 6
(emphasis omitted). Further, Appellant argues that Loui teaches that the
metadata is created before the image is received by the system, thus the

2 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Answer mailed October 4, 2007.
3 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Brief filed June 12, 2007.
4 Appellant’s arguments group claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 20 together.
While we note that Appellant separately addresses claim 17, Appellant’s
arguments directed to claim 17 are virtually identical to the arguments
directed to claim 1. Accordingly, we select claims 1 and 17 as
representative.
Appeal 2009-0825
Application 10/302,304

4

metadata differs from the keyword data of claim 1 which represents a value
that is mapped by the system. Additionally, Appellant argues that the
combination would lead to a non-working system.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with two issues:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Covell, Acharya, and Loui teaches storing an image-ranking
value as a keyword having a numerical value in association with the digital
image as recited in claim 1?
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings of Covell, Acharya, and Loui?

Rejection of claim 5.
Appellant argues on page 10 of the Brief that the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Covell,
Acharya, Loui, and Barber is in error. Appellant argues that, as argued with
respect to claims 1 and 17, the combination of Covell, Acharya, and Loui
does not teach storing the image-ranking value as a keyword. Further,
Appellant argues that the additional teachings of Barber to not make up for
this deficiency in the teachings of Covell, Acharya, and Loui.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions with respect to claim 5 present us with
the same issues as presented with respect to claims 1 and 17.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In analyzing the scope of the claim, Office personnel must rely on
Appellants’ disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used
in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980
Appeal 2009-0825
Application 10/302,304

5

(Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to
be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the
specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d
1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

FINDINGS OF FACT
Covell
1. Covell teaches a system which automatically evaluates the quality of
visual images. Abstract.
2. The system evaluates images in a collection of images to select one or
more images. The images are evaluated based upon quality or
content. Para. 0022.
3. Single quality measurements can be used, or a plurality of quality
measurements can be used. Para. 0028.
4. Several of the quality measurements provide numerical values which
are equated with the quality values preferred, marginal, or poor (e.g.
when using image structure evaluation, images with a value below 0.5
are assigned a value poor, above 0.5 a value of preferred or marginal,
and above 0.8 a value of preferred). Para 0046.
5. When plural quality measurements are used they are combined to
give an overall quality measurement (e.g. a quality level of
“preferred” is given if more than 50% of the individual quality
characterizations of an image are “preferred”). Para. 0049.
Appeal 2009-0825
Application 10/302,304

6

6. The system of Covell can be used to select and store still images from
a visual recording (e.g. movie). The still images can be provided to a
user to select potentially interesting scenes within the visual
recording. Para. 0069 and 0072.
7. Covell also teaches that the images can be presented in any desired
order (e.g. temporal or based upon score, by decreasing order). Para.
0073.
Loui
8. Loui teaches a system for automatically adapting a layout for a
plurality of images. Abstract.
9. As images are loaded into Loui’s system the metadata associated with
each image is loaded and recorded (stored) in a database 50. An
image analysis is also performed on the images to generate an image
metric which is also recorded (stored) in the database. Figure 5; col.
10, ll. 21-24, ll. 38-43.
10. Loui discusses the metadata as data that is useful in describing the
image and includes information such as picture size, orientation,
capture date and time. Col. 10, ll. 24-34.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1 through 4, and 6 through 20.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Covell, Acharya, and Loui teaches storing
an image-ranking value as a keyword in association with the digital image.
Claim 1 recites “storing the image-ranking value as a keyword having a
numerical value in association with the digital image.” Claim 17 recites a
Appeal 2009-0825
Application 10/302,304

7

similar limitation. The Examiner finds that the Specification provides no
specific definition of the term “keyword” and broadly interprets the term as
including the terms discussed in Covell. Answer 11. Appellant’s
Specification on page 13 discusses that the details of using keywords are
described in application 09/972,602, filed October 5, 2001.5 The
Specification of application 09/972,602, on page 7 lines 11-13, describes
keywords as “descriptive words or phrases for cataloging items or albums.”
Thus, we construe the term keyword to be a word or phrase used to identify
and describe the photograph and that word or phrase has a numerical value.
Further, we note that claims 1 and 17 recite that the keyword is stored and
associated with the digital image; however, we note that there is no
limitation directed to the keyword being stored with the digital image.
The Examiner finds that Covell’s teaching of the categorizations of
preferred, poor, and marginal meets the claimed keywords. Answer 11.
Further, the Examiner finds that Covell teaches that the there are numerical
values to the keywords. Answer 12. We concur with the Examiner, as we
find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding. Facts 3 & 4.
Appellant’s argument on pages 6 and 9 of the Brief that images are stored
with the keywords in the instant invention does not persuade us of a
difference between Covell’s quality evaluation values and the claimed
keywords, as we do not find that the argument is commensurate in scope
with the claim. Claims 1 and 17 do not identify that the keywords are stored
with the images; further, we find that the quality identifiers are phrases to

5 We note that this application is incorporated by reference and the
Specification erroneously identifies the filing date as October 5, 2000. See
Specification page 1.
Appeal 2009-0825
Application 10/302,304

8

identify and describe the photograph that have a numerical value (facts 3,
4?) and as such meet the claimed “keywords.” Similarly, Appellant’s
argument, on pages 6 and 8 of the Brief, which is based on an analogy of
sorting the images based upon categories such as blue sky and green grass, is
also not commensurate in scope with claims 1 and 17. Additionally, this
argument is not persuasive as we note that Covell teaches that the images
can be sorted based upon different criteria. Fact 7. Thus, Appellant’s
arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Covell, Acharya, and Loui teaches storing an image-ranking
value as a keyword having a numerical value in association with the digital
image as recited in representative claims 1 and 17.
Appellant also has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
combining the teachings of Covell, Acharya, and Loui. Appellant’s
arguments on pages 7 through 9 of the Brief are directed to Loui teaching
that the metadata stored with the image is different from the categorization
of Covell and as such the combination would not produce a workable
system. We are not persuaded. Covell teaches a system to evaluate the
quality of images. Fact 1. Loui teaches a system which keeps a database of
image data (which is recorded or stored), and this image data comes from
the metadata which is stored with the image and data concerning an image
quality analysis. Fact 9. Thus, we find that Loui specifically contemplates
using, as part of the system, a subsystem which evaluates the quality of
images (such as taught by Covell). Accordingly, we do not find that the
evidence supports the Appellant’s assertion that combining the teachings
would produce an unworkable system; rather, we find the references
themselves suggest such a combination.
Appeal 2009-0825
Application 10/302,304

9

For the above reasons, Appellant’s arguments directed to
representative claims 1 and 17 have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Covell, Acharya, and Loui.

Rejection of claim 5.
Appellant’s arguments on page 10 of the Brief, directed to claim 5,
present us with the same issues as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 17.
As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 1 and 17 have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 for the reasons discussed with respect to
claims 1 and 17.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-0825
Application 10/302,304

10

babc

Xin Wen
2800 Bridge Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065