Ex Parte Singer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2016

12765725 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121765,725 04/22/2010 David William Singer
65656 7590 04/26/2016
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/Apple
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER
8THFLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3834
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.
9091l-P7855US1-848231 1029
EXAMINER
SAEED, USMAAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID WILLIAM SINGER,
JOHN SAMUEL BUSHELL, THAL-WEY THEN,
and CHRISTOPHER LANCE FLICK 1
Appeal2014-006725
Application 12/765,725
Technology Center 2100
Before: DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11, 27-29, 36, 37, 42, and 44--52. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to tagging a media file with location
information, such as GPS information. App. Br. 4 (citing Spec. i-f 31 ). Some
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006725
Application 12/765,725
embodiments of the disclosed invention try to help conserve battery life by
only getting a GPS location if the device has moved more than a specified
distance. See Spec. i-f 46.
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with its key limitation
emphasized:
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium having executable
instructions to cause one or more processing units to perform a
method of generating a media file having timed location
metadata, the method comprising:
capturing, with an electronic device having a lens, a
recording of media over a period of time, wherein the electronic
device is moving among a plurality of different positions during
the recording;
measuring, by a motion sensor of the electronic device,
movement of the electronic device;
for each of a plurality of intervals during the recording:
determining, with the electronic device, a distance
that the electronic device moves during the interval based
on data measured by the motion sensor;
at a variable time determined based on the distance
moved by the electronic device, determining, with
positioning circuitry of the electronic device, a position
associated with the captured media, the position
corresponding to one of the plurality of different positions;
and
storing, with the electronic device, the captured media and
the plurality of determined positions in the media file comprising
at least two tracks, wherein the captured media is stored in a first
track and the plurality of determined positions are stored in a
second track, wherein each portion of the media captured during
each of the plurality of intervals corresponds to one of the
plurality of determined positions.
2
Appeal2014-006725
Application 12/765,725
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11, 27-29, 36, 37, 42, and 44--
52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al. (US 2009/
0140887 Al, published June 4, 2009) in view of Date et al. (US 2009/
0228508 Al, published Sept. 10, 2009). 2 Final Act. 4.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Breed in view of Date teaches or
suggests "at a variable time determined based on the distance moved by the
electronic device, determining, with positioning circuitry of the electronic
device, a position associated with the captured media" as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 27-29, 36, 37, 42, and 44-52
Claim 1 requires "determining, with the electronic device, a distance
that the electronic device moves during the interval based on data measured
by the motion sensor," which is separate and apart from the limitation "at a
variable time determined based on the distance moved by the electronic
device, determining, with positioning circuitry of the electronic device, a
position associated with the captured media."
Appellants point out that the Examiner treats the "at a variable time"
clause italicized above as part of the first limitation ("determining ... a
distance") rather than the second where it belongs ("determining ... a
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 46-48 based on
35 U.S.C. § 112. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2014-006725
Application 12/765,725
position"). App. Br. 10. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred
in this regard. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 7.
Furthermore, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence that
Breed teaches or suggests "at a variable time determined based on the
distance moved." The Examiner cites paragraph 560 of Breed as saying a
clock provides "a time base or time reference" (Final Act. 6), but the
Examiner fails to show that Breed's clock's time base or time reference
teaches or suggests a variable time determined based on distance moved.
Similarly, the Examiner cites paragraph 103 of Breed as disclosing "variable
values and time" (Final Act. 5), yet in context (i.e., an equation "based on
the environmental variable values and time"), Breed's "variable" modifies
only "values" rather than "time." Thus, the Examiner has not persuasively
shown that any such time is "determined based on the distance moved."
Appellants' arguments are persuasive with respect to this limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2, 4--9, 11, 27-29, 36, 37, 42, and 44--52, which contain similar
recitations. See App. Br. 11; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11, 27-29, 36, 37, 42, and 44--52.
REVERSED
4