Ex Parte Kaila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12951897 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/951,897 11/22/2010
95866 7590 04/01/2016
Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P,L,
551 NW 77th street
Suite 111
Boca Raton, FL 33487
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ashish Kaila
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.
37166-US-PAT 1577
EXAMINER
KIM, PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
ptoboca@fggbb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHISH KAILA and GRANT MATTHEW
McSHEFFREY
Appeal2014-002205
Application 12/951,897
Technology Center 2100
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-7, 23, and 24, the only claims pending in the application on appeal.
Claims 8-22 were cancelled previously. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1
We affirm.
1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.,"
filed June 10, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 26, 2013), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 26, 2013) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 5, 2012).
Appeal2014-002205
Application 12/951, 897
The claims are directed to a computerized method and apparatus for
sorting image files. See Spec. i-f 14. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computerized method of sorting image files, the
method comprising:
for each image file in a plurality of image files, assigning
the image file to a category and adding the image file to a list of
image files for the category;
creating a parent group;
for each category, adding image files assigned to the
category to the parent group such that the image files assigned
to the category are ordered consecutively in the parent group;
and
for each category, using a processor to create a child
group to maintain an index of a position in the parent group of a
first image file in the category and a number of image files in
the category.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gustman
Batham
Delia
Melcher
us 5,832,499
US 2002/0082953 Al
US 2010/0073402 Al
US 2010/0214302 Al
2
Nov. 3, 1998
June 27, 2002
Mar. 25, 2010
(filed Sept. 22, 2008)
Aug. 26, 2010
(filed Sept. 14, 2009)
Appeal2014-002205
Application 12/951, 897
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Batham. Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 4---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batham and Melcher. Final Act. 3-5.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batham, Melcher, and Delia. Final Act. 5---6.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batham, Melcher, Delia, and Gustman. Final Act. 6-7.
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejections of independent claims
1 and 23 are in error. App. Br. 8-14; Reply Br. 1--4. These arguments
present us with the following issues:
( 1) Did the Examiner err by relying on different features in
Batham for the different limitations of claim 1 pertammg
to a "parent group"?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Batham discloses
"adding image files assigned to the category to the parent
group," as recited in claim 1?
(3) Did the Examiner err in finding that Batham discloses
adding a plurality of image files assigned to a category,
as recited in claim 1?
( 4) Did the Examiner err in determining that claim 23 would
have been obvious based on the combination of Batham,
Melcher, and Delia?
3
Appeal2014-002205
Application 12/951, 897
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1-3 and 7
Claim 1 recites various limitations pertaining to a "parent group." For
example, claim 1 recites "creating a parent group" and "adding image files
assigned to the category to the parent group." Appellants argue that the
Examiner's analysis is improper because the Examiner "moves from place to
place within Batham to pick and choose from amongst Batham' s various
described examples to allegedly match various claim limitations without
regard for whether those examples are inherently inconsistent." App. Br.
8-9; Reply Br. 1-2. Appellants contend that the Examiner relies on a "link,"
"record," and "product groups" in Batham as allegedly disclosing a "parent
group," but do not cite specific portions of the Examiner's analysis that
allegedly are improper. See App. Br. 8-9.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds that
Batham's "catalog," which is created by the user and includes "a plurality of
[data] fields such as golf [club] manufacturers and a plurality of related
image files," is a "parent group" as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3--4 (citing
Batham i-fi-139, 56). As disclosed in Batham, the user builds the catalog
using various user interfaces and templates provided by the system, and can
add images to the catalog. See id. (citing Batham i-fi-156, 69, 76). We are not
persuaded that the Examiner cited different, inconsistent features or
embodiments in Batham as allegedly disclosing a "parent group," as
Appellants contend.
Appellants further argue that Batham fails to disclose "adding image
files assigned to the category to the parent group," as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants acknowledge that Figures 9A and
4
Appeal2014-002205
Application 12/951, 897
9B of Batham disclose "how an image itself can be fit into a presentation of
a corresponding group of product offerings on a manufacturer-by-
manufacturer basis," but contend that Batham does not disclose adding an
image file assigned to a category. App. Br. 11 (emphasis added).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Batham discloses that "[ t ]he
user may selectively attach pictures to certain product records using a
display menu." Batham i-f 69; see Ans. 4. The picture "can be inserted,
deleted and/or replace[d] by using a graphical user interface and searching
through the computer's directory for the filename of the picture to attach.
This allows the user to attach an image, which resides in the computer,
network, or database 110, to individual records in the catalog database."
Batham i-f 69 (emphasis added); see also id. i-f 34 ("image database 156 is
adapted to store images in a plurality of [file] formats"). Further, as found
by the Examiner and shown in Figures 9 A and 9B of Batham, image files
assigned to a category (i.e., golf club type) may be added to the parent group
(i.e., catalog of golf club manufacturers). See Ans. 4; Batham i-f 76.
Appellants also argue that Batham fails to disclose adding a plurality
of image files assigned to a category, as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
11-12; Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend that to the extent a golf club type
may be considered a "category," Figure 9B of Batham depicts only a single
image per product, not multiple images. App. Br. 11-12.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Regardless of the particular
exemplary catalog display shown in Figures 9 A and 9B, Batham discloses
that the records used to construct the catalog can associate an image with
each individual product in the catalog database. Batham i-fi-1 57, 61 ("Each
product has a picture in this type of catalog output."), 69 ("picture field ...
5
Appeal2014-002205
Application 12/951, 897
associates an image with each individual product having a record in the
catalog database"), 7 6, Fig. 5K; see Ans. 4--5. Thus, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner's finding that Batham discloses adding a plurality
of image files assigned to a category (i.e., golf club type).
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, and 7, which
Appellants do not argue separately. See App. Br. 12.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4-6
Appellants do not argue separately the obviousness rejection of claims
4--6, which depend from independent claim 1. See App. Br. 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4--6 for the same
reasons indicated above with respect to claim 1.
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 23 and 24
Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to make a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 23 based on the combination of Batham, Melcher, and
Delia because the Examiner does not provide a sufficient reason why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Delia with
those of Batham and Melcher in the manner asserted. App. Br. 12-14;
Reply Br. 3--4.
We are not persuaded of error by the Examiner. The Examiner cites
Delia as teaching the limitation of "apply[ing] a border to at least some of
the image files from the cache memory." Final Act. 6; Ans. 5-6. The
Examiner explains the specific teachings of the references being relied upon,
explains why they are similar and combinable, and provides a reason why a
6
Appeal2014-002205
Application 12/951, 897
person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined them. Ans. 5---6.
Specifically, the Examiner finds:
Wherein Batham is directed to automatically extracting data
from the catalog database and an image database in producing a
viewable catalog, and wherein Delia provides a means for batch
processing digital images for output and presentation, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve
the combination of Batham and Melcher for the predictable
result of an image processing apparatus wherein image files
may be batched by having a border applied to said image files
prior to display within a catalog presentation.
Id. (emphasis added). Appellants contend that "one can conceive of reasons
why using borders in ... a catalog would not be considered desirable," such
as wasting valuable page space, but do not explain sufficiently why the
Examiner's asserted reason for the combination-that catalog images with a
border would have an improved "output and presentation"-is factually
incorrect or would have been outweighed by such concerns. See Reply
Br. 3--4; Ans. 5-6; Delia i-f 26 (describing how "digital images featuring
rectangular objects ... will often be desired to have a border of a certain
width and color"). We are persuaded that the Examiner provided sufficient
"articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 23. Appellants do not argue separately the obviousness rejection of
claim 24, which depends from claim 23. See App. Br. 14. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24 as well.
7
Appeal2014-002205
Application 12/951, 897
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 1-3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 4---6, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7,
23, and 24 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8