Ex Parte Sorvari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2012

11268695 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANTTI SORVARI,
JUKKA-PEKKA SALMENKAITA,
and JOONAS PAALASMAA
____________________

Appeal 2010-011157
Application 11/268,695
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-011157
Application 11/268,695

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to methods for characterizing content
item groups and, in particular, to the management of visual content, for
example, visual content in small screen devices such as mobile phones.
Spec. p. 1 ¶ [0001]).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention
which is reproduced below (emphasis added to disputed limitations):
1. A method for representing content organized as
content items in a hierarchical node structure on a graphical
user interface, comprising:
selecting at least one content item representative of the
content items in a node based upon at least one criteria
associated with the content, the at least one criteria including
one of a criteria group comprising favoriteness information
based on automatic recognition of favorite contents and content
analysis, the content analysis including the use of methods
selected from a content analysis group consisting of content
item similarity, content item dissimilarity, face detection, face
recognition, technical capturing parameter similarity, metadata,
context awareness, and combinations thereof; and
selecting at least one representation of the
representative content item, the at least one representation
selected from the group consisting of image representation,

1 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Mar. 23,
2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 6, 2010); Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed June 8, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed
Aug. 20, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Nov. 7, 2005).
Appeal 2010-011157
Application 11/268,695

3
video representation, textual representation, audio
representation, and combinations thereof, wherein the
representation provides information regarding the content
items in the node.
Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yeo US 5,821,945 Oct. 13, 1998
Watson US 2006/0259867 A1 Nov. 16, 2006
Obrador US 7,149,755 B2 Dec. 12, 2006
Dean US 2007/0088692 A1 Apr. 19, 2007
Rejections on Appeal
A. Claims 1 and 7-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Obrador and Watson in view of Yeo. Ans. 4.
B. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Obrador, Watson, and Yeo in view of Dean. Ans. 8.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based upon Appellants’ arguments against the rejection of claim 1
and Appellants’ statement regarding the similarity of independent claims 16
and 21 to claim 1, lack of separate arguments against the rejection of claims
3 and 4 (App. Br. 8-16; Reply Br. 2-3), and based upon our authority under
37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 1 as the representative claim to
decide this appeal in accordance with those arguments and rejections. Thus,
claims 3, 4, and 7-25 stand or fall with independent claim 1.
Appeal 2010-011157
Application 11/268,695

4
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend that “Obrador is merely directed to systems and
methods of presenting media objects, such that, e.g., a user may browse
through a collection of media objects via a set of links between the media
objects.” App. Br. 9, citing Obrador at Abstract and col. 4, l. 65- col. 5, l. 2.
Appellants further contend in this regard that Obrador is merely
concerned with linking and displaying media objects to a particular media
file simultaneously with the particular media file. App. Br. 10.
Appellants also contend that Obrador is silent regarding any
description of any process, system or method directed to the selection of a
representative item. Id.
In addition, Appellants contend that:
Moreover, in no way does, e.g., media file 120 provide
information regarding the content items in the node. Again, all
that would be displayed to a user is the media file 120, and
other media objects that happen to be linked to the media file
120. Even if the user may be aware of a certain organization
parameter by which media objects and the media file are linked,
the media file itself is not representative of, nor does it provide
information regarding the media objects.
Id.
Appellants go on to contend that:
[R]egardless of how the media objects of Obrador may be
linked/chosen/clustered to a particular media file of Obrador,
nothing in Obrador teaches or suggests the selection of at least
one content item representative of content items in a node based
upon at least one criteria associated with the content, and the
Appeal 2010-011157
Application 11/268,695

5
selection of at least one representation of the representative
content item, wherein the representation provides information
regarding the content items in the node.
App. Br. 11-12.
Appellants contend that Obrador teaches away from independent
claims 1, 16, and 21 because the reference is directed to allowing a user to
browse a plurality of media objects, rather than providing “a better/the best
representation of content items (that aren't seen)”. App. Br. 12.
Furthermore, Appellants contend that:
[R]egardless of how the terms media “object” or media “file”
are interpreted in the context of Obrador, it remains that even in
an embodiment where media objects may be clustered
hierarchically, a representative content item is not
displayed/selected/presented in Obrador because multiple
media objects are presented to the user.
Reply Br. 3.
Finally, “Appellant[s] again submit[] that at best, Obrador merely
teaches grouping media objects into a cluster, but that multiple ‘high level’
media objects are still presented to the user, in direct contrast to the various
claimed embodiments disclosed in the pending claims of the present
application.” Reply Br. 3.
ISSUE
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue: Did the
Examiner err in finding that Obrador in combination with Watson and Yeo
teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, particularly the limitations of
“selecting at least one content item representative of the content items in a
Appeal 2010-011157
Application 11/268,695

6
node based upon at least one criteria associated with the content . . . and
selecting at least one representation of the representative content item, . . .
wherein the representation provides information regarding the content items
in the node,” as recited in independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions with respect to claim 1, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 4-6) in response to Appellants’ arguments
(App. Br. 8-16). However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
In particular, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that Obrador
teaches or suggests the limitations “selecting at least one content item
representative of the content items in a node based upon at least one criteria
associated with the content . . . and selecting at least one representation of
the representative content item, . . . wherein the representation provides
information regarding the content items in the node,” as recited in
independent claim 1.
Further in this regard, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Obrador’s teaching (see col. 10:3-57) that “[i]n general, the media objects of
a cluster at one level in the hierarchy are represented by a single media
object in a cluster at the next higher level,” meets the claimed limitation of
Appeal 2010-011157
Application 11/268,695

7
“selecting at least one representation of the representative content item,” as
recited in claim 1.
We further point out that Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 12) that
“Obrador is . . . directed to allowing a user to browse a plurality of media
objects, not provide a better/the best representation of content items (that
aren’t seen)” is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Claim 1 requires “selecting at least one representation of the
representative content item . . . wherein the representation provides
information regarding the content items in the node,” (emphasis added).
This claim recitation does not preclude browsing and selecting from a
plurality of media objects, nor does it require a “better” or “best”
representation of content items, seen or unseen, as argued by Appellants.
Therefore, Appellants have not provided persuasive arguments that
establish that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 1, such that we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejection of claims
3, 4 and 7-25 which fall with claim 1.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-25 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2010-011157
Application 11/268,695

8
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) (2011).
AFFIRMED

ELD