Ex Parte Lindley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13626966 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/626,966 09/26/2012
61947 7590 09/01/2016
Apple - Blank Rome
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
HOUSTON, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory Charles Lindley
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P6012USC1 7179
(l 19-0372USC1)
EXAMINER
CHANNA V AJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY CHARLES LINDLEY and TIMOTHY B. MARTIN
Appeal2015-005993
Application 13/626,9661
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 2-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Apple, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-005993
Application 13/626,966
Invention
The claimed invention is related to categorization of digital media
based on media characteristics. Title.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claims 2 and 15 are reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:
2. A non-transitory program storage device, readable
by a processor and comprising instructions stored thereon to
cause one or more processors to:
receive a first media object comprising a first digital
image, a first feature, and a first set of metadata, wherein the first
feature includes at least a portion of a first person's face, and
wherein the first set of metadata includes a first metadata tag
identifYing the first person;
receive a second media object comprising a second digital
image and a second set of metadata, wherein the second set of
metadata does not comprise a metadata tag identifYing the first
person when the second media object is received;
detect a second feature of the second digital image,
wherein the second feature includes at least a portion of a face;
identify one or more similarities between the first feature
and the detected second feature;
determine, based on the one or more identified similarities,
that the first feature and detected second feature comprise
portions of the first person's face; and
modifY the second set of metadata to include a second
metadata tag identifYing the first person.
15. A non-transitory program storage device, readable
by a processor and comprising instructions stored thereon to
cause one or more processors to:
2
Appeal2015-005993
Application 13/626,966
receive a plurality of media objects, including at least a
first media object comprising a first digital image, a first feature,
and a first set of metadata, and a second media object comprising
a second digital image, a second feature, and a second set of
metadata;
wherein the first feature comprises at least a portion of a
first person's face, and wherein the first set of metadata
comprises a metadata tag identifYing the first person, and
wherein the second feature comprises at least a portion of a face,
and wherein the second set of metadata does not comprise a
metadata tag identifying the first person when received;
compare the second feature against a plurality of features
stored ma facial recognition database;
identify similarities between the second feature and the
plurality of features stored in the facial recognition database;
determine, based on the identified similarities, that the
second feature comprises portions of the first person's face; and
modifY the second set of metadata to comprise a metadata
tag that identifies the first person.
Rejections
Claims 15-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Gokturk et al. (US 2006/0251292 A 1; publ. Nov. 9, 2006).
Claims 2-14 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shiota et al. (US 2006/0055825 Al; publ. Mar. 16, 2006)
and Yamada et al. (US 2007/0003140 Al; publ. Jan. 4, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Section 102 - Independent Claims 15 and 21
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
15, because Gokturk fails to disclose the limitation "modify the second set of
3
Appeal2015-005993
Application 13/626,966
metadata to comprise a metadata tag that identifies the first person," as
recited in independent claim 15 and similarly recited in independent claim
21. We agree with Appellants.
"[A ]nticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior
art reference discloses every element of the claim .... " In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation."
Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir 1986).
Here, the Examiner cites to paragraphs 80 and 211 of Gokturk as
disclosing the disputed limitation. Final Act. 13. Paragraphs 80 and 211 of
Gokturk, however, do not disclose modifying a second set of metadata to
comprise a metadata tag that identifies a first person. Paragraph 80
discusses face feature alignment and pose correction. The update discussed
in paragraph 80 involves updating facial components to minimize
reconstruction error, not updating a metatag to identify a first person.
Paragraph 211 discusses normalizing image data of a detected person for use
in recognition processes and identifying metadata indicating creation time of
an image, but it does not disclose modifying a metadata tag to identify a first
person. Moreover, the Examiner's Answer does not discuss this disputed
claim limitation and therefore provides no further explanation for the basis
of the Examiner's rejection. See Ans. 10-12.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 15 and 21, along with their
respective dependent claims, 16-20 and 22-25.
4
Appeal2015-005993
Application 13/626,966
Section j 03 - Independent Claims 2, 8, and 26
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 2, 8, and 26, because the combination of Shiota and Yamada fails to
teach or suggest "wherein the first set of metadata includes a first metadata
tag identifying the first person," "wherein the second set of metadata does
not comprise a metadata tag identifying the first person when the second
media object is received," and "modify the second set of metadata to include
a second metadata tag identifying the first person," as recited in independent
claim 2, and similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 26. App. Br. 10-
12; Reply Br. 5, 6. Appellants argue that features of an image are different
than metadata, the word "metadata" is not used by Shiota, and that there is
no teaching of modifying any metadata associated with images to include a
tag identifying a person. App. Br. 10-12.
The Examiner, however, finds that it is:
[C]ommonly well known to the ordinary skill in the art the basic
definition of "metadata" is data about the data", metadata
summarizes information about data, in this case, metadata is
integral part of the "person identifier" associated with the "image
data" for example image feature(s) such as contour shape of a
face, eyes, nose, and a mouth and like as detailed in prior art of
Shiota's fig 4-6. It is further noted that prior art of Shiota
specifically teaches "metadata" identifying person (person
identifier fig 5-6) associated with image identifier and image data
overall forms metadata tag functions same as feature can be a
depiction of at least a portion of a person.
Ans. 4.
The Examiner also points out that the Specification indicates that:
[a] metadata tag can include a name of the person (spec: page 2,
0005, line 4-6), media tag of a media object in the digital media
5
Appeal2015-005993
Application 13/626,966
album with the digital media album (spec: page 3, line 0006, line
1-3); metadata tag information descriptive of media object may
be text string, a name or attribute of the media object (spec: page
12, 0034, line 5-9).
Ans. 4, 5.
The Examiner cites to Shiota paragraphs 29 and 39 as teaching or
suggesting the recited first and second set of metadata, wherein the first set
of metadata includes a tag identifying a first person and the second set does
not have such an ID tag. Final Act. 7; Ans. 4--8. The Examiner also cites to
Shiota paragraph 44 as teaching or suggesting the recited modifying the
second set of metadata to include a metadata tag identifying the first person.
Final Act. 8; Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner. Shiota teaches an electronic album of a
person (owner) comprising a plurality of images with particular facial
features which are analyzed and then used to compare and select
corresponding (matching) images from another electronic album for transfer
to the owner's album. Ans. 4, 7; Shiota i-fi-129, 39, 44; Abstract; Figs. 2, 8.
In particular, Shiota explains, "the person recognizing module 240
recognizes the object to be a person corresponding to the detected face
image and makes the object correspond to the person identifier of the
person." Shiota i139 (emphasis added). At the very least, this would
suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art to associate (tag) the selected
image with information (metadata) identifying the image as being the person
of interest. We, therefore, are not persuaded by Appellants that the
Examiner erred finding the combination of Shiota and Yamada teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations recited in independent claims 2, 8, and 26.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
6
Appeal2015-005993
Application 13/626,966
these claims.
Remaining Claims 3-7 and 9-14
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to dependent claims 3-7 and 9-14. App. Br. 9-12.
We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted
Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if
they wish for individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-14 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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-IN-PART
7