Ex Parte Svendsen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 1, 2014

11282431 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HUGH SVENDSEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-007399
Application 11/282,431
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007399
Application 11/282,431

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-25. Claims 7 and 18 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed September 13, 2010, Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 18, 2011, and the Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
November 16, 2010, for the respective details. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any
other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1 and 23 under appeal read as follows:
1. A method performed by a computer processor for
controlling access to digital assets in an online media sharing
system comprising:
tagging, via the computer processor, each of a plurality of
digital assets with a corresponding at least one of a plurality of
keywords, wherein each of the at least one of the plurality of
keywords is descriptive of content depicted in the
corresponding digital asset;
defining, via the computer processor, a guest list
including a plurality of guests; and
for each of the plurality of guests, assigning permissions,
via the computer processor, by selecting at least one select
keyword from the plurality of keywords such that the ones of
the plurality of digital assets that the guest is permitted to view
Appeal 2011-007399
Application 11/282,431

3
are ones of the plurality of digital assets tagged with the at least
one select keyword.

23. A method performed on a computer processor for
controlling access to digital assets in an online media sharing
system comprising:
tagging, via the computer processor, each of a plurality of
digital assets with at least one of a plurality of keywords,
wherein at least one of the plurality of digital assets is tagged
with a dynamic keyword having a state, wherein the state of the
dynamic keyword is one of true and false and is based on a
criterion which varies over time, and wherein the state is
determined at a time of a request by a guest to access the at
least one of the plurality of digital assets, and access to the at
least one of the plurality of digital assets by the guest is based
on the state of the dynamic keyword;
defining, via the computer processor, a guest list
including a plurality of guests including the guest; and
for each of the plurality of guests, assigning permissions,
via the computer processor, defining ones of the plurality of
digital assets that the guest is permitted to view based on the
plurality of keywords, including the dynamic keyword.

Rejections on Appeal1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 8-10, 12, 16, and 19-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Toyama (US 2005/0190273 A1,
Sep. 1, 2005). Ans. 5-6.
The Examiner rejected claims 2-4, 6, 13-15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toyama in view of Lin
(US 2003/0052897 A1, Mar. 20, 2003). Ans. 6-7.

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-6, 8-17, 19-22, and 25.
Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
Appeal 2011-007399
Application 11/282,431

4
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toyama in view of Weber
(US 2006/0218148 A1, Sep. 28, 2006). Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Toyama in view of Weber and Tannenbaum
(US 7,224,777 B1, May 29, 2007). Ans. 8.
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Toyama does not disclose “assigning permissions . . . by selecting at least
one select keyword from the plurality of keywords such that the ones of the
plurality of digital assets that the guest is permitted to view are ones of the
plurality of digital assets tagged with the at least one select keyword,” as
recited in claim 1 (emphasis ours), and similarly recited in claim 12
(hereinafter “use of tagging for assigning permission” feature). App. Br. 9-
11; Reply Br. 3.
2. Appellant admits “Weber discloses limiting access to digital assets
based on a time,” but contends “Weber fails to teach or suggest doing so via
the use of dynamic keywords, as recited in Appellant’s claim 23.” App. Br.
12 (emphasis ours).
3. Appellant also contends the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent
claim 24 because “the criterion which varies over time comprises a weather
condition.” App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 5, 8-10, 12, 16, and 19-21
as being anticipated by Toyama?
Appeal 2011-007399
Application 11/282,431

5
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 2-4, 6, 11, 13-15, 17, and 22-
25 as obvious over Toyama and Lin/Weber/Tannenbaum because the cited
references fail to disclose, teach or suggest the argued limitations?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings
and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 5-12). We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
As to Appellant’s contention 1, we agree with the Examiner Toyama
explicitly discloses the use of tagging for assigning permissions feature.
Ans. 10; see Toyama, ¶ [0097]. In particular, Toyama discloses a user may
annotate photographs, such as those of an office Christmas party, as being
accessible only to co-workers. Toyama, ¶ [0097]. In paragraph [0101],
Toyama discloses “users can tag any picture in the database as being a
picture of them.” The Examiner finds, and we agree, “to restrict co-workers
to only Christmas party photos, those photos would have to have already
been annotated as the event ‘Christmas party’ and this event is selected.
Thus only co-workers on the guest list who also search for ‘Christmas party’
may view the photos.” Ans. 10. In other words, restricting photo access to
specific people discloses the use of tagging for assigning permissions feature
of claim 1.
As to Appellant’s contention 2, the Examiner finds Toyama discloses
keywords. Ans. 7-8 (citing Toyama, ¶ [0026]). The Examiner further relies
on Weber for disclosing access control based on a dynamic condition. Ans.
Appeal 2011-007399
Application 11/282,431

6
8 (citing Weber, ¶ [0042]). Based on our review of Weber (¶ [0042]), and
consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 8), we interpret the
claim language “dynamic” using the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with Appellant’s disclosure to include Weber’s access control
based on varying time. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Consideration should be given to what the combined teachings,
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and nature of the problem to be
solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the teaching
value of Toyama is in disclosing keywords; whereas the dynamic condition
is disclosed by Weber. Thus, we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion
that Toyama in combination with Weber teaches or suggests Appellant’s
claimed invention (Ans. 7-8, and 11).
We note Appellant’s arguments addressing Weber (App. Br. 12), but,
because Appellant does not explain why Appellant’s claimed invention
would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art, these arguments are
not persuasive of Examiner error.
As to Appellant’s contention 3, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
underlying reasoning (Ans. 8, 12), which are incorporated herein by
reference.
Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-25.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 5, 8-10, 12, 16, and
19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Toyama.
Appeal 2011-007399
Application 11/282,431

7
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2-4, 6, 13-15, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toyama in view of Lin.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11, 22, 23, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toyama in view of Weber.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toyama in view of Weber and
Tannenbaum.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-25 are
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc