Ex Parte Stalenhoef et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2016

12606221 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/606,221 10/27/2009
61947 7590 06/14/2016
Apple - Blank Rome
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
HOUSTON, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thijs Stalenhoef
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.
Pl0795US1
(l 19-0343US1)
CONFIRMATION NO.
2357
EXAMINER
MAHMOOD, REZWANUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2016 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 THIJS ST ALENHOEF, JAN ERIK SOLEM, NIKOLAI
NYHOLM, and GEOFF PARKER
Appeal2015-001805
Application 12/606,221
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .... ,1 .... ,....,-TTr'l.r-"\l\-1,....Al/'\.r'" , .. T"""1 •-,
Appeuants' appeal unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom tne bxammer s
final rejection of claims 27--48, which are the only claims currently pending
in this application. Claims 1-26 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention is for "combining recognition of objects, backgrounds,
scenes, and metadata in images with social graph data for automatically
detecting events of interest." Spec. p. 1.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Apple, Inc. App. Br.
3.
Appeal2015-001805
Application 12/606,221
Claim 27, which is illustrative, reads as follows, with disputed
limitations italicized:
27. A non-transitory computer-readable storage
medium, having instructions stored thereon to cause one or
more computation units to:
receive a first set of digital images associated with a first user,
each image in the first set having associated time, location, and
capture condition data;
divide the first set of images into two or more image segments
based, at least in part, on capture condition data that represents a
change of scene or subject matter between one or more pairs of
sequentially captured images in the first set of images;
identify a relationship between the first user and a second user
based, at least in part, on a social graph of the first user;
correlate one of the image segments associated with the first
user with an image segment associated with the second user based, at
least in part, on the time and location data associated with one or
more images in the image segment associated with the first user; and
store information that represents an event and links the
correlated image segments in a computer-readable storage medium.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 27-32, 35-39, and 42--48 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gokturk (US 2006/0251338 Al;
published Nov. 9, 2006) and Inoue (US 2010/0195929 Al; published Aug.
5, 2010). Final Act. 5-22.
The Examiner rejected claims 33, 34, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gokturk, Inoue, and Sridhar (US
2006/0248165 Al; published Nov. 2, 2006). Final Act. 23-29.
2
Appeal2015-001805
Application 12/606,221
ISSUE
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejections are in error. App. Br.
8-18; Reply Br. 3-10. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments
1s:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Gokturk and Inoue
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of
receive a first set of digital images associated with a first user,
each image in the first set having associated time, location, and
capture condition data;
divide the first set of images into two or more image segments
based, at least in part, on capture condition data that represents a
change of scene or subject matter between one or more pairs of
sequentially captured images in the first set of images;
... [and]
correlate one of the image segments associated with the first
user with an image segment associated with the second user,
as recited in claim 27?
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Ans. 3-12, Final Act. 2-29. We
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
The Examiner maps the recited "divide the first set of images into two
or more image segments based, at least in part, on capture condition data that
represents a change of scene or subject matter between one or more pairs of
sequentially captured images in the first set of images," to Gokturk's
3
Appeal2015-001805
Application 12/606,221
description of using time and location information obtained from EXIF
(Exchangeable Image File Format (Spec. 1 )) data of images and the
calculated difference of the information for images captured in succession to
identify image segments or groups. Ans. 5 (citing Gokturk, i-fi-1 9 8 and 184 ).
The Examiner finds that Gokturk "discloses categorizing or sorting images
where images are clustered or grouped together based on common feature,
which is dividing a first set of images into segments." Id. at 7 (citing
Gokturk i162). The Examiner acknowledges that Gokturk "does not
explicitly disclose grouping based on captured condition data," (Ans. 5), but
the Examiner maps Inoue' s disclosure of grouping images based on
automatic exposure, shutter speeds, and f-stop information to the recited
"capture condition data." Id.
Appellants argue that Gokturk does not teach dividing the first set of
images into two or more image segments "based on a change of scene or
subject matter between one or more pairs of sequentially captured images"
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11. However, as the Examiner finds,
Gokturk "discloses grouping using difference metrics and using difference
vectors tied to metrics such as time, location, face etc. to determine if a
succession of pictures taken seconds apart show the same person or subject,"
which the Examiner interprets as teaching dividing a set of images into two
or more image segments, based on a change of scene or subject matter
between one or more pairs of sequentially captured images. Ans. 4--7 (citing
Gokturk i-fi-162, 94, 98) (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner's
finding that Gokturk' s disclosure of sorting or grouping a succession of
pictures taken seconds apart, using difference metrics and vectors, teaches
4
Appeal2015-001805
Application 12/606,221
the claimed dividing of images "based on a change of scene or subject
matter between one or more pairs of sequentially captured images."
Appellants also argue that the cited portions of Gokturk are merely
describing how to "identify common characteristics in all of the images in
the set, not a change of scene or subject matter that indicates segment
boundaries between sequentially captured images." App. Br. 11. We are
not persuaded by this argument. We find this argument is not commensurate
in scope with claim 27, which does not recite "segment boundaries." We
decline to read "segment boundaries" into the claims.
Appellants argue that the Examiner "essentially dissects the claim
element into constituent parts and evaluates the parts in isolation." App. Br.
1 7. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by "ignor[ ing] the specific
requirement that the capture condition data represent a change of scene or
subject matter between the images." Id. We are not persuaded by this
argument. Appellants' arguments focus on Gokturk. Here, the Examiner
relies on Inoue as teaching or suggesting the "captured condition data"
element of the claim. See Ans. 8-9 (citing Inoue i-fi-1 207, 212-217). The
Examiner rejects claim 27 over the combined teachings of Gokturk and
Inoue, and what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of
Gokturk and Inoue teaches "divid[ing] the first set of images into two or
more image segments based, at least in part on capture condition data that
5
Appeal2015-001805
Application 12/606,221
represents a change of scene or subject matter between one or more pairs of
sequentially captured images in the first set of images." Ans. at 8-9 (citing
Gokturk i-fi-194, 98, 184, 102-105, 222-226). For example, Gokturk explains
that "[c]lustering may be performed based on characteristics of the image
file and of the contents of the image." Gokturk i-f l 02 (emphasis added).
Inoue describes grouping similar images based on automatic exposure,
shutter speeds, f-stop, and information read from image EXIF information.
Inoue, i-fi-1207, 212-217.
Appellants' claims and Specification do not explicitly define "capture
condition data that represents a change of scene or subject matter between
one or more pairs of sequentially captured images in the first set of images,"
as recited in claim 27. We find no error in the Examiner's finding that Inoue
teaches capture condition data when Inoue describes, for example,
information read from EXIF data that is used to group similar images. Ans.
9 (citing Inoue i-fi-1212-217, 105, 153, 161---63, 243). This EXIF data is
consistent with the Specification's description of "EXIF data" and indicators
"of a rapid change of scene or subject matter in photos taken sequentially"
such as shift in shutter speed. Spec. p. 7-8.
Appellants argue that Gokturk does not teach "correlating two
separate image segments based on time and location data." App. Br. 18;
Reply Br. 8 ("[t]he discussion in paragraph 94 relates to grouping images,
not correlating them."). The Examiner responds as follows. Gokturk in
paragraphs 45 and 94 discloses collecting images from multiple users over a
network and grouping the photographs using different metrics, which are
used for recognition or classification. Ans. 10-11. Gokturk in paragraph 98
discloses metrics such as time, location, and face in images and how their
6
Appeal2015-001805
Application 12/606,221
difference vectors can aid recognition and correlation that images that a
succession of captured images contain the same subject, which the Examiner
finds teaches correlating based on time and location data associated with
images. Id. at 11. Gokturk in paragraph 102 discloses sorting, categorizing,
or selecting images from a larger set forming clusters to assign correlation
information, which the Examiner finds teaches correlating one of an image
segment. Id. Gokturk in claims 34-39 discloses generating a first
recognition information in a first set of images provided by a first user and
comparing the first recognition information with a second recognition
information generated from a second set of images provided by a second
user, and comparing the first and second information to identify a
correlation, which the Examiner finds teaches correlating one of an image
segment associated with a first user with an image segment associated with a
second user. Id.
Appellants do not address Gokturk's claims 34-392 and have not
presented persuasive arguments or evidence demonstrating that the
Examiner erred in finding that the above disclosures collectively teach or
suggest correlating two separate image segments based, at least in part, on
time and location data, as recited in claim 27. Reply Br. 7-10.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 7.
Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability above (see App. Br. 8-18), the
2 Appellants address paragraphs 34--39 of Gokturk (Reply Br. 9), but those
paragraphs have a different disclosure than claims 34--39.
7
Appeal2015-001805
Application 12/606,221
remaining pending claims fall for the same reasons as claim 2 7. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 27--48 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)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8