Ex Parte Touchard et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201510550115 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte NICOLAS PATRICE BERNARD TOUCHARD and JEAN-MARIE VAU 1 ________________ Appeal 2012012274 Application 10/550,115 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before CARL W.WHITEHEAD JR., JOHN G. NEW, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The Real Party-in-Interest is the Eastman Kodak Company. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2012-012274 Application 10/550,115 2 SUMMARY Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claim 1 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Jones (US 2001/0032335 A1, October 18, 2001) (“Jones”) and Toyama et al. (US 2004/0070678 A1, April 15, 2004) (“Toyama”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for sharing multimedia data and especially images captured by many cameras provided with image transmission means, comprising: the reception of digital image routing messages that include image data and at least some event data; the linking to each image of an identifier according to the event data, and the saving of said digital images; the reception of image requests also comprising at least some event data; the search for at least one saved image, linked to an identifier according to an event data corresponding to the event data of the request, and if the search finds at least one image, the transmission of the images to an addressee. Abstract. 2 Appellants make no argument with respect to dependent claims 2 and 6–10 (claims 2 and 11–12 are cancelled. App. Br. 9–10), nor do they list the claims as intended to be reviewed on appeal. App. Br. 3. We therefore consider that these claims are argued together with claim 1 for purposes of this appeal and that all other arguments are waived by Appellants. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.31(c), 41.37(c)(iv). Appeal 2012-012274 Application 10/550,115 3 REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 recites: 1 A method for sharing multimedia data captured by a plurality of portable devices each having a built-in camera and data transmission capability, comprising the steps of: a server receiving data messages, said data messages being transmitted by the portable devices over a communication network and each including at least first event data, the first event data including both a date of transmission of a corresponding data message and a location that the corresponding data message was transmitted from; the server providing an identifier in accordance with said date of transmission and with said location, and respectively linking each identifier to its corresponding data message, and saving each of said data messages and its linked identifier in a memory; the server receiving a data request, the data request being transmitted by one of the portable devices over the communication network and comprising at least second event data, the second event data including a date of transmission of the data request and a location that the data request was transmitted from; the server searching for at least one data message saved in the memory that is linked to an identifier that matches said date of transmission of the data request and said location that the data request was transmitted from; the server transmitting said at least one data message saved in the memory over the communication network to said one of the portable devices; and wherein the first event data and the second event data are provided by a telecommunications operator routing said data Appeal 2012-012274 Application 10/550,115 4 messages and said data request that are transmitted by the portable devices over the communication network. App. Br. 9. ISSUES AND ANALYSES Issue 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Jones and Toyama teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “the first event data including both a date of transmission of a corresponding data message and a location that the corresponding data message was transmitted from.” App. Br. 3. Analysis Appellants submit that Jones does not teach the location from which a data message was transmitted, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 3. According to Appellants, the Examiner misconstrued the term “device address” taught by Jones in paragraph [0017]. Id. at 4. Appellants argue that this term, together with a cellular telephone number should be understood to mean network addresses permitting connection, rather than a physical location. Id. Furthermore, Appellants argue that the “device address” of a still image capture device does not indicate the location from where this device is likely to have transmitted data. Id. Likewise, Appellants argue that Jones’ teaching of the, the “location of a device” does not necessarily disclose the location from which a data message was transmitted. App. Br. 4 (citing Jones, ¶ 69). Appellants contend that the location of a device is used to set up a communication with Appeal 2012-012274 Application 10/550,115 5 a user, but does not, even implicitly, take into account the location from where a data message was sent. Id. Appellants argue that the location of a device that a user is “attached” to, and with whom a communication shall be set up, has no bearing upon the location where a device was at the time it transmitted an image or any other data. Id. Appellants admit that Jones teaches that a user can annotate an image, which may include location data that the user adds to the image. App. Br. 4 (citing Jones, ¶ 127). However, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that Jones thus teaches that the location data is the location from which the data message was transmitted. Id. Appellants submit that the location of a captured scene, the location of the user/camera at the time of capture, and the location of a user/camera and a data message corresponding to from where the image was transmitted, are all different locations and should not be conflated or confused. Id. at 4–5. The Examiner responds that Toyama teaches an images exchange system comprising a server that receives image from a client device. Ans. 10 (citing Toyama, ¶ 61). The Examiner finds that the image received at the server of photo sharing system includes manual and automatic image metadata; the metadata includes the time and location the image was taken using such devices as a camera integrated with a cellular telephone. Id. (citing Toyama, ¶¶ 26, 73–75). The Examiner further finds that the metadata is directed to event data. Id. (citing Toyama, ¶¶ 98–99). Further, the Examiner finds that Jones teaches a cellular telephone connected to a communication network and capable of transmitting messages and images directed to event data over the communication network at any time and any location, on a real-time picture communication Appeal 2012-012274 Application 10/550,115 6 using a device that include a camera. Ans. 10 (citing Jones, ¶ 61, Figs. 1–2). Therefore, the Examiner finds, the cellular telephone with camera can be used to transmit messages including image message, and image message includes time and location information, and the image message can be transmitted from the same location the image is taken. Id. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants argue that neither Jones nor Toyama by itself teach the disputed limitations. See App. Br. 3–5, 6–7. We remind Appellants that “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where … the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (C.C.P.A. 1981): (citing Application of Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757 (C.C.P.A. 1968). Claim 1 is rejected over the combination of Jones and Toyama. Toyama teaches, in relevant part: Ideally, every camera used by the system and method according to the present invention has a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, a compass, and a method for measuring the pitch and roll of the camera when photographs are taken. The GPS can provide location information in the form of latitude and longitude and is accurate to approximately one meter in non- military applications. …. [I]f the camera used to take the photo is somehow linked with a cell phone, cell site location may also provide an indication of the location where the picture was taken. In short, any form of location information that can be correlated with the time stamp or the content of a photograph can be used to provide geolocation and camera orientation information. Appeal 2012-012274 Application 10/550,115 7 Toyama, ¶ 75. Toyama thus teaches that, when a picture is taken with a GPS-enabled cellular phone camera, metadata concerning the location of where the picture was taken can be encoded into the image data. Jones teaches a wireless-connected digital camera which: [M]ay include a system for communicating the digital image at the same time as the images is captured, and it may include a system for communicating the digital image before the image is saved on the memory card, thereby allowing real-time communication. The viewer 72 comprises any suitable viewing media, such as an LCD screen that can display an image substantially when received for real-time communication. The combined camera-viewer 73 comprises a combination of both the camera and viewer 72. Any of the user interface devices 71, 72, and 73 may also include, in the same package, one or more network interfaces. Jones, ¶ 61. Combining the teaching of Jones and Toyama, a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that, when taking a picture with a GPS- enabled digital cellular phone camera, that encodes as metadata the location of where the picture was taken (as taught by Toyama), and the camera transmits the captured image in real time to a network interface (as taught by Jones), the camera is necessarily transmitting information regarding the location from which the data is transmitted. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection with respect to this issue. Issue 2 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined cited prior art references teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “the second event data including a date of transmission of the data Appeal 2012-012274 Application 10/550,115 8 request and a location that the data request was transmitted from.” App. Br. 5. Analysis Appellants repeat their argument that an electronic address cannot reasonably construed to mean a “location.” App. Br. 5. Appellants admit that Jones teaches information likely to be used to establish a communication but does not mention the location from which a data request was transmitted. Id. (citing Jones, ¶ 52). Appellants submit that Jones teaches a request from a remote camera, and even the possible location of the camera, but contend that this is not the same as the location from which the data request was transmitted from. Id. Appellants argue that, in the context of Jones, the location the data request was transmitted from would not be relevant. Id. We have related supra our reasoning as to why the combination of Jones and Toyama teach the transmission of a data message containing metadata information concerning the location from where the message was sent. Appellants admit that Jones teaches a request from a remote camera. App. Br. 5. We find that, combining this with the combined teachings related supra, the combination of Jones and Toyama teaches the disputed location, and we consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection on this ground. Issue 3 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined cited prior art references teach “a telecommunication operator providing a Appeal 2012-012274 Application 10/550,115 9 time stamp or any indication of a location a request or data message is sent from.” App. Br. 6. Analysis As an initial matter, we are unable to discern a limitation in claim 1 (or any of Appellants’ claims) reciting “a telecommunication operator providing a time stamp or any indication of a location a request or data message is sent from.” App. Br. 6. Claim 1 does recite: “wherein the first event data and the second event data are provided by a telecommunications operator routing said data messages and said data request that are transmitted by the portable devices over the communication network” but this limitation does not explicitly require the telecommunications operator to provide a time stamp or indicating from where the request was sent. More importantly, Appellants adduce no evidence, nor present any argument, as to why the cited prior art references fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, other than to cite the limitation and make a conclusory statement that the references do not support it. That is insufficient to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie conclusion of obviousness. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011): (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2012-012274 Application 10/550,115 10 DECISION The Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 6–10 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). AFFIRMED kmm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation