Ex Parte Manico et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

13616660 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/616,660 09/14/2012
61947 7590 09/22/2016
Apple - Blank Rome
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
HOUSTON, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joseph A. Manico
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.
P20553USD1
(l 19-0550US2)
7626
EXAMINER
KAO, YIH-SIEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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 JOSEPH A. MANICO, JOHN R. FREDLUND,
ELENA A. FEDOROVSKA YA, and DOUGLAS B. BEAUDET
Appeal2015-003316
Application 13/616,6601
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-10, 12-18, 20-33, and 35-58.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' invention is an imaging evaluation method. User inputs
to the camera are received concurrent with the imaging. Usage parameters
of the captured image records, responsive to use on the camera by a user
1 The real party in interest is Apple Inc.
2 Claims 11, 19, and 34 have been cancelled.
Appeal2015-003316
Application 13/616,660
after image capture, are also tracked. The inputs are valued to provide a set
of input values, and an image value index is calculated using the input
values. See Abstract; Claim 1.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. An image evaluation method comprising the steps of:
capturing a plurality of image records with a camera;
receiving, for each image record, at least one input
representative of user input to said camera concurrent with said
capturing, each input defining a setting of at least one of a
plurality of operational functions of said camera;
valuing, for each image record, said inputs to provide
respective sets of input values;
tracking usage parameters of the captured image records
responsive to utilization on the camera by a user after capture of
the image records;
computing an image value index of each image record
from a respective set of input values and tracked usage
parameters; and
associating each image value index with a respective
image record.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Matraszek
Toyama
Fedorovskaya
Pilu
US 2003/0128389 Al
US 2004/0070678 Al
US 2004/0101178 Al
US 2006/0103731 Al
July 10, 2003
Apr. 15, 2004
May 27, 2004
May 18, 2006
Claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29, and 31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pilu and Fedorovskaya.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 17, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 35-38 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pilu,
Fedorovskaya, and Matraszek.
2
Appeal2015-003316
Application 13/616,660
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pilu, Fedorovskaya, and Toyama.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pilu, Fedorovskaya, Toyama, and Matraszek.
Claims 14, 20, 26, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pilu, Fedorovskaya, and "well-known art."
Throughout this Decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed May 27, 2014), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec.
16, 2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 16, 2014) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Pilu and Fedorovskaya disclose or suggest
computing an image value index of each image record from a respective set
of input values and tracked usage parameters?
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1,4,8, 13, 15, 16, 18,21,24,25,29,AND31
Appellants argue that the combination of Pilu and Fedorovskaya fails
to disclose or suggest "computing an image value index of each image
record from a respective set of input values and tracked usage parameters,"
as recited in independent claims 1 and 18. Independent claim 24 contains
very similar limitations. The claimed "input values" are derived from one or
more inputs representative of user input to the camera component
concurrent with image record capture. The claimed "tracked usage
3
Appeal2015-003316
Application 13/616,660
parameters" are derived from "utilization on the camera by a user after
capture of the image records" (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that Pilu does not disclose "computing an image
value index based on the claimed input values, which are non-post capture
inputs that define operational functions on a camera (e.g., exposure, zoom,
shutter speed, etc.)." Reply Br. 4. We do not agree with Appellants'
argument. The Examiner finds that Pilu discloses analysis to determine the
accuracy of the framing, which can be expressed qualitatively. Final Act. 5;
Pilu i-f 79. This analysis can be performed by using individual behavior
features extracted from raw measurements, sensor or camera controls. One
example given is "operation of the zoom, which indicates, perhaps in
combination with other features, that the user was interested in a particular
subject." See Pilu i-f 79. We agree with the Examiner's finding that
"operation of the zoom" in Pilu corresponds to "user input to said camera
concurrent with [image] capturing."
Appellants admit in the Appeal Brief that "Fedorovskaya teaches
evaluating inputs during review of a previously captured image . ... For
example, Fedorovskaya monitors a user's facial expressions during review
of the image . . . . That data is then used to rank the image against other
images." App. Br. 8; Fedorovskaya i-fi-135-37. The Examiner also finds that
Fedorovskaya discloses such post-image-capture activity. See Final Act. 6-
7.
Appellants subsequently argue in the Reply Brief that Fedorovskaya
discloses determining a user's degree of preference for an image by
analyzing the facial expression of the user while viewing the image; that
other metadata can be stored, such as "image capture parameters" or "image
4
Appeal2015-003316
Application 13/616,660
editing history;" but that those additional metadata are not used as a basis for
determining a user's preference for an image. Reply Br. 4. We are not
persuaded by this argument, however, that Fedorovskaya does not disclose
"tracking usage parameters of the captured image records responsive to
utilization on the camera by a user after capture," because we agree with the
Examiner's finding that storing personal affective information, in
Fedorovskaya, in response to a user viewing captured images corresponds to
the claimed "tracking usage parameters." See Final Act. 6-7.
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4, 8, 13,
15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29, and 31 over the combination of Pilu and
Fedorovskaya. We sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection.
CLAIMS 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 17, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 32, AND 35-38
Appellants' only argument with respect to these claims is that
Matraszek fails to cure the deficiencies of Pilu and Fedorovskaya. As
discussed supra, we do not agree that such deficiencies exist. As a result,
we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 17, 22,
23, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 35-38 over Pilu, Fedorovskaya, and Matraszek for
the same reasons given with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 15,
16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29, and 31, supra.
CLAIMS
Appellants' only argument with respect to claim 5 is that Toyama fails
to cure the deficiencies of Pilu and Fedorovskaya. As discussed supra, we
do not agree that such deficiencies exist. As a result, we sustain the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 5 over Pilu, Fedorovskaya, and
5
Appeal2015-003316
Application 13/616,660
Toyama for the same reasons given with respect to the rejection of claims 1,
4,8, 13, 15, 16, 18,21,24,25,29,and31,supra.
CLAIMS 6 AND 7
Appellants' only argument with respect to these claims is that Toyama
and Matraszek fail to cure the deficiencies of Pilu and Fedorovskaya. As
discussed supra, we do not agree that such deficiencies exist. As a result, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 6 and 7 over Pilu,
Fedorovskaya, Toyama, and Matraszek for the same reasons given with
respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29, and
31, supra.
CLAIMS 14, 20, 26, AND 33
Appellants' only argument with respect to these claims is that "well-
known art" fails to cure the deficiencies of Pilu and Fedorovskaya. As
discussed supra, we do not agree that such deficiencies exist. As a result,
we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 14, 20, 26, and 33
over Pilu, Fedorovskaya, and "well-known art" for the same reasons given
with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29,
and 31, supra.
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of Pilu and Fedorovskaya discloses computing an
image value index of each image record from a respective set of input values
and tracked usage parameters.
6
Appeal2015-003316
Application 13/616,660
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10, 12-18, 20-33, and
3 5-5 8 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7