Ex Parte Wilensky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

10526287 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/526,287 03/01/2005
121363 7590 08/31/2016
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(Adobe Systems Incorporated)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd
Kansas City, MO 64108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregg D. Wilensky
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.
2055.364US 1 6269
EXAMINER
BROMELL, ALEXANDRIA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
kspringer@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGG D. WILENSKY
Appeal2013-000055
Application 10/526,287 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN A. EVANS, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real-party-in-interest is Adobe Systems Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2013-000055
Application 10/526,287
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
60-68 and 71-81. Claims 1-59 are canceled. Claims 69 and 70 are
withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction over the rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a reduction of search ambiguity with
multiple media references. Spec., Title. Claim 60, reproduced below with a
disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
60. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a plurality of reference images;
calculating by a computer image parameters for each
reference image wherein the image parameters characterize
color, texture and shape features that are common to the
reference image and at least one other reference image;
combining by the computer the calculated image
parameters to generate a composite reference image; and
comparing by the computer the composite reference image
to images in a collection in order to identify one or more of the
images having features described by the composite reference
image.
2
Appeal2013-000055
Application 10/526,287
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Wactlar
Crill
us 5,835,667
US 6,445,822B1
Nov. 10, 1998
Sept. 3, 2002
Essam A. El-Kwae & Mansur R. Kabuka, "A Robust Framework
for Content - Based Retrieval by Spatial Similarity in Image
Databases," ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 17,
No. 2, 174--198 (Apr. 1999) ("El-Kwae").
Kresimir Matkovic et al., "Visual Image Query," 2nd Int'l
Symposium on Smart Graphics, 116-123 (June 11-13, 2002)
("Matkovic").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 60, 71, and 80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Crill. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3--4.
Claims 61, 67, 68, 72, 78, 79, and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crill and Matkovic. Final Act. 5-9;
Ans. 4--8.
Claims 62---64 and 73-75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Crill, Matkovic, and El-Kwae. Final Act 9-12;
Ans. 8-11.
Claims 65, 66, 76, and 77 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Crill, Matkovic, and Wactlar. Final Act. 12-15;
Ans. 11-14.
3
Appeal2013-000055
Application 10/526,287
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION2
The Examiner misunderstands the disputed limitation, improperly
finding Crill' s selection of images parameters that are common to a
reference image and a target image discloses the disputed limitation
addressing a "reference image and at least one other reference image." App.
Br. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 60,
71, and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Crill. We agree
with Appellant's conclusions as to this rejection of the claims.
Appellant argues "[t]he Examiner has misunderstood the claim feature
' ... common to the reference image and at least one other reference
image."' App. Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, the
Examiner improperly interprets Crill's "select[ion of] images parameters that
are common between the reference and target images," which fails to
disclose the disputed claim language reciting "features [that] are common to
the reference image and at least one other 'reference image."' Id. The
Examiner responds by finding Crill inherently "must identify similarities
between images in order to compare them ... by identifying and measuring
image properties or parameters." Ans. 17. The Examiner concludes
"[t]herefore, [the] Examiner believes that Crill allows the user to select
images parameters that are common between the reference and target images
2 We note Appellant raises an additional contention of error, but we need not
reach it as we find our resolution of the highlighted contention is dispositive
of the appealed rejections.
4
Appeal2013-000055
Application 10/526,287
based on the individual characteristics of the reference image such as shape,
color, or texture." Ans. 18 (emphasis added).
The Examiner fails to address Appellant's argument, i.e., where in or
why does Crill disclose image parameters that are common to the reference
image and, not a target image as found by the Examiner, but at least one
other reference image as claimed. The Examiner's finding that "it is
inherent that there must be some basis for comparing images, one must
identify similarities between images in order to compare them" (Ans. 17)
also fails to address the disputed limitation. Furthermore, we are unable to
identify within the cited portion of Crill any disclosure of the disputed
limitation. Therefore, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the
rejection of independent claims 60, 71, and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Crill.
Moreover, (i) because the Examiner fails to explain why Crill's
disclosure of selecting image parameters that are common between the
reference and target images teaches or suggests the disputed limitation
including calculating image parameter features that are common to the
reference image and at least one other reference image, and (ii) because the
Examiner's applications of the Matkovic, El-Kwae, and Wactlar references
fail to cure the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra, we are
similarly constrained to reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 60-68 and 71-81.
REVERSED
5