P2S Media Group Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2021

2020002880 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/162,018 01/23/2014 Petri RAHJA ESP.2726.USU1 7190
93582 7590 07/28/2021
ZIEGLER IP LAW GROUP, LLC.
55 GREENS FARMS ROAD
WESTPORT, CT 06880
EXAMINER
KHALID, OMER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
ptomail@gziplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETRI RAHJA, VILLE LAURIKARI, JUSSI MARKULA, and
TIMO RINNE
____________________

Appeal 2020-002880
Application 14/162,018
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–8 and 12–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). According to Appellant, P2S MEDIA GROUP
OY is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002880
Application 14/162,018

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention relates to requesting and providing multimedia
data. Spec. ¶ 1. A first user defines a task that includes criteria for requested
multimedia data. Spec., Abstr. A second user provides the requested data in
response to the defined task and criteria. Id. In an embodiment, a server
receives and validates the multimedia data from the second user. Spec. ¶ 32.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method for providing
multimedia data, the method comprising:

receiving, at a server apparatus, task information from a
first user apparatus,

the task information requesting multimedia data
comprising a digital still image to be captured by a second user
apparatus of a plurality of second user apparatuses, and

the task information comprising criteria for the
requested multimedia data to be captured by the second user
apparatus including a geographical location of the second user
apparatus and at least a subject for the multimedia data and
availability time for the multimedia data to third user
apparatuses;

using the server apparatus to store the task information
and make the task information available for a plurality of
second users based on the criteria;

provisioning by the server apparatus the task information
to a second user apparatus located in a geographical location
defined by the criteria of the task information;

receiving by the server apparatus, from the second user
apparatus, location information of the second user apparatus
Appeal 2020-002880
Application 14/162,018

3
and the requested multimedia data in response to the task
information based on the criteria;
checking by the server apparatus the location
information;

approving by the server apparatus the multimedia
data in response to the location information being within the
geographical area;

validating by the server apparatus that the received
multimedia data matches to the task information and the criteria
for the requested multimedia data,

using the server apparatus to store the received
multimedia data,

using the server apparatus to make the stored multimedia
data available to a third user apparatus;

receiving, at the server apparatus, a request from the third
user apparatus for the multimedia data; and

transmitting the multimedia data to the third user
apparatus, wherein the multimedia data comprises:

the digital still image.

EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner rejects claims 1–8 and 12–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of O’Keefe et al. (US

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 18,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed March 6, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed February 21, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 8, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-002880
Application 14/162,018

4
2013/0307997 A1, Nov. 21, 2013) (“O’Keefe”) and Trussel et al. (US
2013/0226453 A1, Aug. 29, 2013) (“Trussel”). Final Act. 3–18.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, Reply
Brief, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant presents several arguments, with respect to claim 1, that the
Examiner’s rejection is in error as the combination of O’Keefe and Trussel
does not teach or render obvious a server apparatus receiving from a first
user apparatus “task information requesting multimedia data comprising a
digital still image to be captured by a second user apparatus . . . [,] the task
information comprising criteria . . . including a geographical location of the
second user apparatus;” the server apparatus receiving location information
and the requested multimedia data from the second user apparatus location;
and the server apparatus approving and validating the received multimedia
data. Appeal Br. 10–16; Reply Br. 2–9.
The dispositive issue presented by Appellant is whether the Examiner
has found in the combined teachings of O’Keefe and Trussel “a server
apparatus” which “receiv[es] . . . task information from a first user
apparatus, the task information requesting multimedia data comprising a
digital still image to be captured by a second user apparatus.” Appeal
Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 2–5. Appellant argues that O’Keefe lacks “a request
from a first apparatus for a still image to be captured by a second apparatus,
where the request is received by a server.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing O’Keefe,
Appeal 2020-002880
Application 14/162,018

5
Figs. 1, 4A, 4B, ¶ 67). Instead, Appellant contends, “O’Keefe forms a
phone-phone session by accepting a request” for a video chat session
between a user’s phone and a remote phone, without further “instruct[ing]
any third phone to do anything.” Id.
We are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Claim 1 recites
“receiving, at a server apparatus, task information from a first user
apparatus, the task information requesting multimedia data comprising a
digital still image to be captured by a second user apparatus of a plurality of
second user apparatuses.” See Claim 1. The Examiner has found that this
limitation is met by O’Keefe’s cell phone user 300A accepting a request to
begin a video chat session from a remote user’s phone 300B. Final Act. 3
(citing O’Keefe, Figs. 1, 4, ¶ 67). The Examiner, pointing to the phones of
O’Keefe in communication with web servers 272 and 282, has explained
that “the cell phones are server apparatus[es].” Id. The Examiner has
alternatively or additionally relied on web server 282 of O’Keefe for the
claimed server apparatus. Id. at 4–5 (citing O’Keefe ¶¶ 35–37, 51, 57, 67,
Fig. 1).
Regarding the Examiner’s finding that the user phones 300A and
300B of O’Keefe map to the server apparatus, the first user apparatus, and
second user apparatus, we agree with Appellant’s characterization that
O’Keefe describes “a phone-phone session,” namely a video call between
phones 300A and 300B. Appeal Br. 11 (citing O’Keefe Figs. 1, 4A, 4B,
¶ 67). Thus, the Examiner’s rejection conflates the claimed server apparatus
with one of the two claimed user apparatuses. See Final Act. 3. In the
Answer, the Examiner asserts that “[i]t would have been obvious to have a
request to have a third phone complete a task (e.g. take a picture).” Ans. 25
Appeal 2020-002880
Application 14/162,018

6
(citing O’Keefe ¶ 34). However, as Appellant points out, the Examiner’s
postulation is an “unsupported modification of O’Keefe” not supported by
any of O’Keefe’s express teachings. Reply Br. 2–3, 5. Furthermore,
assuming arguendo that a user’s cell phone could function as a server
apparatus, the Examiner has not further provided evidence that one of
O’Keefe’s other phones, 300A or 300B, in such hypothetical third-phone
scenario would have been known to perform, or rendered obvious, the
additional steps required by the server apparatus. See generally Ans.
For example, the Examiner proffers no evidence that one of
O’Keefe’s user phones would “validat[e] . . . that the received multimedia
data matches to the task information and the criteria for the requested
multimedia data,” as claimed. Here, the Examiner has relied upon O’Keefe’s
storing digital image files with metadata that includes date, time, and
location information; and controlling third-party access to a user’s images.
Final Act. 5 (citing O’Keefe, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 36, 50–51); Ans. 30 (citing O’Keefe
¶¶ 36, 57). The Examiner does not present additional evidence that one of
O’Keefe’s user phones would be known to validate that the metadata
matches some criteria or task information. See generally Ans.
Furthermore, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner has not shown that O’Keefe teaches any server apparatus that
validates that the multimedia data matches the task information or criteria.
Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 8. The Examiner’s cited portions of O’Keefe
describe storing images with metadata in a database, but are silent as to
validating that the images match any criteria. See O’Keefe, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 36, 50–
51, 57. The Examiner’s alternative or additional reliance on the web servers
272 or 282 of O’Keefe similarly fails because the Examiner has not
Appeal 2020-002880
Application 14/162,018

7
presented evidence that the web servers perform the claimed validating that
the received multimedia data matches the task information and criteria. See
Final Act. 5; Ans. 8.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 13, 14, and
15 each recite limitations directed to a server receiving from a first user
apparatus task information requesting multimedia data comprising a digital
still image to be captured by a second user apparatus, where the task
information includes a geographical location of the second user apparatus,
where the server apparatus receiving location information and the requested
multimedia data from the second user apparatus location and validates the
received multimedia data. Thus, independent claims 13, 14 and 15 recite
limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1, and we are
similarly persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 13, 14, and 15. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 13–15 and claims 2–8, 12, and 16–21
depending therefrom over the combined teachings of O’Keefe and Trussel.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 12–
21

103(a) O’Keefe,
Trussel
1–8, 12–21
REVERSED