Ex Parte Landschaft et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201411469041 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ASSAF LANDSCHAFT, LAURENT MAUGUEE, and SHAJITH THENGUMMOOTIL ____________ Appeal 2011-012343 Application 11/469,0411 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Application filed August 31, 2006. The real party in interest is Agere Systems Inc. Appeal 2011-012343 Application 11/469,041 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-22. (Br. 3.)2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns a mobile device, Global Positioning System, communications system and method for creating images imprinted with a location designation. (Spec. ¶¶ [0001], [0005]-[0008]; Abstract.) Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A mobile electronic device, comprising: a camera configured to allow a user to create an image associated with a location of said mobile electronic device; and a location designation unit coupled to said camera and configured to define a location area corresponding to a collection of geographic locations that may be employed to designate a particular location landmark and provide a location designation from said location area during a time said user is creating said image and to attach said location designation to said image, thereby creating a location- imprinted image. 2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed March 8, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 11, 2011. Appeal 2011-012343 Application 11/469,041 3 Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 7-11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0064438 A1, published Mar. 13, 2008 (filed Jun. 8, 2005) (“Calvet”). 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 12, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Calvet, and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0142027 A1, published Jun. 29, 2006 (“Krishnamurthi”). 3. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Calvet, Krishnamurthi, and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0042277 A1, published Apr. 11, 2002 (“Smith”). 4. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 14, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Calvet and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0044401 A1, published Mar. 2, 2006 (“Park”). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us follows: Does the Examiner err in finding that Calvet discloses “a location designation unit . . . configured to define a location area corresponding to a collection of geographic locations . . . and provide a location designation from said location area . . . and to attach said location designation to said image, thereby creating a location-imprinted image” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 9, 17, and 21? Appeal 2011-012343 Application 11/469,041 4 FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office Action mailed September 30, 2010, as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or set aside in the Analysis that follows. ANALYSIS Based on Appellants’ arguments (Br. 7-13), we select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and groupings with respect to claims 1-22. Appellants do not separately argue with particularity the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4-6, 12-14, and 17- 22 nor individual claims 2-22. (Br. 7-13.) 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004). We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3-19), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 19- 22) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following for emphasis. Appellants contend that Calvet does not disclose the disputed features of claim 1. (Br. 7-9.) Specifically, Appellants contend the portions of Calvet relied upon by the Examiner teach a mobile communication device that uses an external localization service to present a number of different location names to a user from which the user selects one of the location names to create a filename to attach to an image captured by the user and a camera of the mobile communication terminal. . . . The cited portions of Calvet do NOT teach defining a location area . . . . [Rather, Calvet describes] a single, specific Appeal 2011-012343 Application 11/469,041 5 geographic location (selected by a user) . . . . [And,] the cited portions of Calvet teach a location designation is provided by the selection of one of the location names presented to the user. (Br. 8.) As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 19-21), Calvet describes a mobile device including a digital camera that captures and stores images and may annotate the images with place names. (Calvet, ¶¶ [0001]-[0002].) The device acquires location information (a location designation) from a localization service which utilizes location data (coordinates, country, place, and municipality, etc.) to provide a location name to the device. (Ans. 19- 21; Calvet, ¶¶ [0045]-[0054].) The location name (designation) identifies a location area comprising a collection of geographic locations (Id.; see Calvet, ¶ [0032]) – e.g., “‘Frognerparken, Oslo, Norway’ is just not a single specific geographic location but a location area itself comprising a collection of geographic locations (e.g. monolith, fountain, etc.) . . . .” (Ans. 21.) Further, Appellants failed to file a Reply Brief rebutting the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Thus, for all the reasons supra, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 7-11, 15, and 16 not separately argued with particularity (Br. 9-11). With respect to claims 4-6, 12-14, and 17-22, rejected under § 103 over the combinations of: (1) Calvet and Krishnamurthi (claims 4, 12, 17, 18, and 20) (Ans. 9-13); (2) Calvet, Krishnamurthi, and Smith (claims 5, 13, and 19) (Ans. 13-15); and (3) Calvet and Park (claims 6, 14, 21, and 22) Appeal 2011-012343 Application 11/469,041 6 (Ans. 15-19), Appellants do not separately argue either the rejections, or claims 4-6, 12-14, and 17-22 with particularity (Br. 9-13). Instead, Appellants merely reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 1 (supra). (Id.) Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4-6, 12-14, and 17-22 for the same reasons as claim 1 (supra). CONCLUSIONS Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 7-11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4-6, 12-14, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-22. 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 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation