Ex Parte Marilly et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201612935996 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/935,996 01/03/2011 48116 7590 11/02/2016 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Emmanuel Marilly 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. LUTZ 201184US01 9020 EXAMINER GRACIA, GARY S Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2016 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): docketing@faysharpe.com ipsnarocp@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EMMANUEL MARILL Y and CORINNE OBLED Appeal2015-001093 Application 12/935,996 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-001093 Application 12/935,996 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a "system ... dedicated to managing accessibility to objects in different locations" (Abstract). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method devoted to managing the accessibility of objects in different locations, said method comprising: generating and storing digital images of said objects, associating each image with stored information representative of: a location where the image is stored, an availability status of the image, and rules defining use of the image, and the location where the corresponding object depicted in the image is located, an accessibility status of the corresponding object depicted in the image, and rules defining use of the corresponding object depicted in the image, and authorizing access, in a given location, to at least one object or one image thereof when the associated accessibility or availability status of object or image allows said access in that given location and if the associated usage rules are complied with. 2 Appeal2015-001093 Application 12/935,996 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, and 6-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harper (US 2008/0015953 Al; Jan. 17, 2008) and further in view of Slik (US 2008/0126404 Al; May 29, 2008). Final Act. 5. Claims 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harper in view of Slik, and further in view of Levien (US 2007/0222865 Al; Sept. 27, 2007). Final Act. 31. ISSUES The issues are whether the Examiner erred in: 1. finding Slik and Harper combinable as analogous art; and 2. finding the combination of Harper and Slik discloses or suggests "associating each image with stored information representative of: a location where the image is stored ... and the location where the corresponding object depicted in the image is located," as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS Combination of the references: analogous art Appellants argue the Examiner erred in combining the references because the combination is "inappropriate" (App. Br. 5). Appellants contend "Harper is directed to a media sampling, recommendation and purchasing system" and that "Slik is concerned with the storage and management of fixed content objects" (App. Br. 5). Appellants then argue "[t]he art is simply non-analogous in the present case, and it would have been inappropriate to combine the references together" (App. Br. 5). We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of 3 Appeal2015-001093 Application 12/935,996 endeavor as the claims, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). First, we note Appellants appear to argue each reference is non- analogous to each other, rather than to the present application. (See App. Br. 5.) In any event, the Examiner finds "Harper discloses a user-personalized product sampling and recommendation system [that] has a database storing individual customer profile data files" (Ans. 2, citing Harper i-f 11) and "Slik discloses a storage system [that] receives a fixed-content object to be stored in accordance with information storage management policies" (Ans. 3, citing Slik i-f 11 ), in which the objects may be "diagnostic images, lab results, doctor notes, or audio and video files" (Ans. 3, citing Slik i-f 53). We find both references pertain to solving the problem of storing and retrieving information and furthermore they are both from the same field of endeavor as they relate to database applications. Second, Appellants' argument that the combination of references is "inappropriate" is conclusory. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case). Combination of the references: disclosing or suggesting all claim elements Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Harper and Slik discloses or suggests "associating each image with stored information representative of: a location where the image is stored ... and the location where the corresponding object depicted in the image is located," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 5). Appellants contend that "[a]ccording to the claims, the 'object' and the digital 'image' thereof are 4 Appeal2015-001093 Application 12/935,996 NOT the same thing. Moreover, information representative of the location where the image is stored is distinct from information representative of the location where the object is located" (App. Br. 6). Appellants further contend "the 'object' referenced in Slik IS the stored digital information" (App. Br. 7 ,). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Appellants' Specification states that "[a]ll types of objects are concerned by the invention" (Ans. 5, citing Spec. 1:3). Appellants' Specification additionally states that "[fJurthermore, here the word 'object' refers to anything that may be exhibited and/or sold in a location" (Spec. 5:15-16). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the claimed "object" encompasses Harper's movie DVD, and the claimed "image" encompasses Harper's video clip, in which "UPC information of the DVD (i.e., object) is stored at the media server and is used to locate the metadata and video clips (i.e. object depicted in the image) of the movie DVD" (Ans. 7, citing Harper i-fi-170, 75, 47). 1 Appellants' arguments do not address and rebut the Examiner's findings regarding the broad but reasonable interpretation of the "object" and "image," when applied to Harper. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claim 2 and claims 3-12. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in: 1. finding Slik and Harper combinable as analogous art; and 1 We also note that the Harper suggests the location of the DVD is tied to the DVD's genre information, because "merchandise is typically arranged by genre in aisles or racks" (Harper i1 43). 5 Appeal2015-001093 Application 12/935,996 2. finding the combination of Harper and Slik discloses or suggests "associating each image with stored information representative of: a location where the image is stored ... and the location where the corresponding object depicted in the image is located," as recited in claim 1. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation