CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2020

2019003209 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2020)

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.
13/855,502 04/02/2013 Steven M. Casey CLC-161/CON 7632
174132 7590 09/22/2020
Lumen Patent Firm
CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC
438 Cambridge Ave., Suite 225
Palo Alto, CA 94306
EXAMINER
ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2020 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):
kathleen.mcinnish@centurylink.com
ptomail@lumenpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN M. CASEY and BRUCE A. PHILLIPS
___________

Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 3.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party-in-interest as Century Link Intellectual Property
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
October 1, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 18, 2019); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 4, 2018) and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 18, 2019); and the Specification (“Spec.,”
filed April 2, 2013). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and
Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The recited devices, systems, and methods relate “to systems and
methods for image capture, and in particular to systems and methods for
associating information with a captured image.” Spec. ¶ 5.
As noted above, claims 1–20 are pending. Claims 1, 2, and 11 are
independent. Appeal Br. 26–27 (claims 1 and 2), 28–29 (claim 11) (Claims
App.).
Claim 11 recites “[a] method for obtaining location information in
relation to an object.” Id. at 28. Claim 1 recites,
[a] wireless communication device, comprising: a wireless radio;
a location sensor; a direction sensor; an image sensor; a distance
sensor; a display device; a microprocessor communicably
coupled with the wireless radio, the location sensor, the direction
sensor, the image sensor, the distance sensor, and the display
device; and a computer readable medium, wherein the computer
readable medium includes instructions executable by the
microprocessor to
perform functions substantially as recited in claim 11.3 Id. at 26. Claim 2
recites “[a] system for providing descriptive information about an object, the
system comprising: a location sensor; a direction sensor; an image sensor; a
display device; a microprocessor; and a computer readable medium, wherein
the computer readable medium includes instructions executable by the
microprocessor to” perform functions as recited in claim 11. Id. at 27.

3 Claim 1 recites that the computer readable media includes instructions
executable by the microprocessor to “update the descriptive information in
real time when the image sensor captures images of different objects.”
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). This limitation is not recited in claim 2 or 11,
but is recited in claims 9 and 18, which depend from claims 2 and 11,
respectively. Id. at 28, 29.
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

3

Claims 3–10 depend directly from claim 2, and claims 12–20 depend
directly from claim 11. Id. at 26–30.
Claim 11, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
11. A method for obtaining location information in
relation to an object, the method comprising:
capturing video with an imaging device, the imaging
device comprising an image sensor,
a direction sensor, a location sensor, a display device, and
a microprocessor;
detecting, with the location sensor, a first location, the first
location being a location of the location sensor;
capturing video with the image sensor, the video
comprising a plurality of images;
determining, with the direction sensor, a direction of the
image sensor;
calculating, with the microprocessor, a second location
based at least in part on the first location and the direction, the
second location being a location of an object in the captured
images;
providing, with the imaging device, the location of the
object to a query database;
receiving, from the query database, descriptive
information about the object; and
displaying, with the display device, at least some of the
descriptive information along with a live display of the video
received from the image sensor as the plurality of images are
being captured, wherein the descriptive information comprises
at least one of historic information, access rates, driving
directions, parking information, walking directions, and menus.
Id. at 28–29 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

4

REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name4 Reference Issued/Publ’d Filed
Kimura US 5,913,078 June 15, 1999 Aug. 15, 1997
Clapper US 6,023,241 February 8, 2000 Nov. 13, 1998
Ellenby US 2002/0140745 A1 Oct. 3, 2002 Jan. 24, 2001
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Kimura, Ellenby, and Clapper. Final Act. 3–
7. We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claim 11; so do we. See Appeal Br. 15–23; Ans. 4; Reply
Br. 4–8. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final
Office Action and the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of
fact for emphasis. We address the rejection below.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Over Kimura, Ellenby, and Clapper
1. Claim 11
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over the combined teachings of Kimura, Ellenby, and Clapper.
Final Act. 3–5, 6. The Examiner finds that Kimura teaches or suggests the

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

5

majority of the limitations of independent claim 11. See id. at 3–4. The
Examiner finds, however, that Kimura “does not explicitly teach [receiving]
descriptive information about the object from the query database; and
captured, wherein the descriptive information comprises at least one of
historic information, access rates, driving directions, parking information,
walking directions, and menus.” See id. at 4. Nevertheless, the Examiner
finds Ellenby teaches or suggests these limitations (see id. at 4 (citing
Ellenby ¶¶ 130–137, 351–355); Ans. 4 (citing Ellenby, Figs. 45, 47, 48)) and
a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to
combine Kimura’s teachings with those of Ellenby to achieve the methods
recited in claim 11 (see id. at 4). See also Spec. ¶ 11 (“As a more specific
example, the object can be a restaurant, and the information about the object
includes a menu for the restaurant.” (emphasis added)); Ellenby ¶ 319 (“In
response to addressing the restaurant, a computer make take an action
whereby the user receives a menu of the afternoon specials presented on the
display of the device for convenient review.” (emphasis added)).
The Examiner finds, however, that neither Kimura nor Ellenby
teaches or suggests displaying “at least some of the descriptive information
along with a live display of the video received from the image sensor as the
plurality of images are being captured,” as recited in claim 11. See Final
Act. 4. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds, “[i]n the same field of endeavor,
Clapper discloses at least some of the descriptive information along with a
live display of the video received from the image sensor as the plurality of
images are being captured (column 5 lines 40-59)” and a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine Kimura’s and
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

6

Ellenby’s teachings with those of Clapper to achieve the methods recited in
claim 11. See id. at 5.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs with respect to the rejection of
claim 11 for two reasons. For the reasons given below, Appellant’s reasons
are not persuasive.
First, Appellant contends that Clapper fails to teach or suggest,
“[d]isplaying descriptive information along with a live display of the
video.” Appeal Br. 16. In particular, Appellant contends,
while Clapper teaches the display of information recorded by the
camera “as well as [Global Positioning System (GPS)]
information such as current time and location or mapping
information,” the Appellant respectfully submits that the display
of information recorded by the camera is entirely different from
the “live display of the video received from the image sensor as
the plurality of images are being captured” recited in claim 11.
Id.; see Clapper, 2:16–19 (“[a] display screen 20 may display information
recorded by the camera 18 as well as GPS information such as current time
and location or mapping information. The screen 20 may, for example, be a
liquid crystal display (LCD).”). Further, Appellant contends:
Even when a user is prompted to capture an image in Clapper,
there is no indication or disclosure that the GPS data is
displayed as the image is being captured. Clapper merely
discloses that “[o]nce the image is received, the GPS data may
be superimposed by the software over the image" and "whenever
this point is recalled, the associated multimedia information,
including audio, video, GPS and other appended data, in one
embodiment in accordance with the invention, may be accessed
and recalled for collective display.” Clapper, col. 4, line 65 -
col. 5, line 17. There is no indication that the received image is
displayed on a display device in Clapper. At most, Clapper
teaches that the received image is displayed with the GPS
information when the point is recalled from storage.
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

7

Appeal Br. 18 (emphases added); see Clapper, Fig. 6. Thus, Appellant
concludes Clapper only teaches or suggests the storage and retrieval of video
and/or an image associated with GPS information, not the live display of
video. See Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 5 (“Clapper merely discloses
that GPS coordinates may be stored along with media content. See
Clapper, col. 4, lines 12–19. However, although GPS coordinates in Clapper
may be stored with media content, this does not mean that the GPS
coordinates are displayed with a live display of video content.”). We
disagree.
The Examiner finds, “Clapper discloses that digital image data is
either displayed or stored which provides additional indication that the
capture video data is displayed in real-time (Clapper: column 2 lines 27 -
40).” Ans. 4 (emphasis added). In particular, Clapper discloses, “[t]he
controller 28 may in turn cause the image to be displayed on the display 20
or to be stored on the storage device 32 in some embodiments.” Clapper,
2:36–38 (emphasis added). Thus, Clapper teaches or suggests that the
captured images may be displayed, and need not be stored.
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

8

Clapper’s Figure 6 is reproduced below.

Figure 6 depicts “a flow chart for one embodiment of software for providing
a record of multimedia stored at a variety of different locations in
accordance with the invention.” Clapper, 1:58–60.
Referring to Figure 6, Clapper explains that software 78 enables
“[t]hat information, which may include information about a plurality of
different locations, may be linked together so that it may be serially
displayed or displayed in any particular order the user wishes using a map
display for example to facilitate selection of the information to be
displayed.” Id. at 4:40–45. Further, Clapper explains, “[w]hen the user
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

9

provides a video . . . input, as indicated in diamond 82, the current GPS data
is obtained, as indicated in block 86.” Id. at 4:53–55 (emphasis added).
Moreover, Clapper explains:
If an image is not stored, as indicated in diamond 90, the user
may be prompted for image entry. Once the image is received,
the GPS data may be superimposed by the software over the
image. In other words, the GPS data may, in one embodiment,
be provided in graphical form as an overlay or window within
the digital image.
Id. at 4:64–5:2 (emphases added); but see Appeal Br. 18 (citing Clapper,
4:65–5:17). Thus, like the claimed methods, after the image is obtained, the
steps of “providing, with the imaging device, the location of the object to a
query database; [and] receiving, from the query database, descriptive
information about the object” are performed. Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.).
Nevertheless, Appellant considers the claim to recite display of the images
and descriptive information “as the plurality of images are being captured.”
Clapper teaches or suggests that if the video images are to be displayed – not
stored, the GPS data is obtained and then superimposed on the images. See
Clapper, Fig. 6 (items 82, 86, 88, 90, 92); see also id., Fig. 7 (“GPS data”
110). Thus, we are persuaded Clapper teaches or suggests “displaying, with
the display device, at least some of the descriptive information along with a
live display of the video received from the image sensor as the plurality of
images are being captured,” as recited in claim 11.
Second, Appellant contends Ellenby fails to teach or suggest “the
descriptive information comprises at least one of historic information, access
rates, driving directions, parking information, walking directions, and
menus.” Appeal Br. 21 (emphasis added). In particular, Appellant contends:
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

10

Ellenby discloses that “[a]fter a brief introductory phase,
the system programmed to deliver information of greater utility,
shows what is for lunch. FIG. 47 includes a mobile unit 471 being
pointed via address indicator 472 at the pizza restaurant 473,
where a response further shows a text list presented on display
screen 474, including a pizza menu 475, and specifically ‘Four
Cheese’ pizza 476.’ Ellenby, ¶ 0353. Although Ellenby may
display a menu, there is no indication that the menu may be
displayed along with a live display of video received from the
image sensor.
Id. at 22 (emphasis added). Further, Appellant contends that Clapper does
not teach or suggest this missing limitation. Id.
Nevertheless, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Ellenby and Clapper to teach or suggest this limitation. See Final Act. 4–5;
Ans. 4. Initially, we agree with the Examiner that Ellenby discloses
descriptive information, including a menu (Ellenby, Fig. 47), associated with
an image of an object, such as a restaurant. See Ans. 4; see also Ellenby,
Fig. 48, ¶ 354 (“In this case as illustrated in FIG. 48, a map 481 of the
neighborhood is played at the output user interface, a display 482, as yet
another type of multi-media information element associated with the object
Tony Anita’s Pizza 483.”). As Ellenby explains, “[d]igitally recorded
information such as video files, text fields, icons, photographs, control
objects, et cetera, among others, are examples of multimedia data which may
be included in an object record as ‘information elements’.” Ellenby ¶ 355.
Appellant may not attack the references individually to overcome the
rejection when the Examiner relies of their combined teachings to show
obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, we agree with the
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

11

Examiner that the combined teachings of the applied references teach or
suggest this limitation.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that claim 11, as
well as claims 1 and 2, which are not argued separately, is obvious over the
combined teachings of Kimura, Ellenby, and Clapper. See Appeal Br. 22–
23. Further, with the exception of claims 9, 10, 18, and 19, Appellant does
not challenge the rejection of the dependent claims separately. See id. at 23–
25. On this record, then, we also are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
finding claims 3–8, 12–17, and 20 obvious over the combined teachings of
Kimura, Ellenby, and Clapper. Consequently, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 1–8, 11–17, and 20.
2. Claims 9 and 18
As noted above, the Examiner also rejects claims 9 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kimura, Ellenby,
and Clapper. Final Act. 6, 7. Claim 9 depends directly from independent
claim 2 and recites, in the systems of claim 2, “the instructions are further
executable by the microprocessor to update the descriptive information in
real time when the image sensor captures images of different objects.”
Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.). Claim 18 depends directly from independent
claim 11 and recites substantially the same limitation to the methods of
claim 11. Id. at 29.
As noted above, claim 1 recites that “the computer readable medium
includes instructions executable by the microprocessor to: . . . update the
descriptive information in real time when the image sensor captures images
of different objects.” Id. at 27 (emphasis added); see supra note 3. The
Examiner finds Kimura teaches or suggests this limitation. Final Act. 4
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

12

(citing Kimura, 5:35–49). The Examiner refers to the rejection of claim 1 to
support the rejection of claims 9 and 18. Id. at 6, 7.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 9 and 18 for
two reasons. First, Appellant contends that neither Kimura nor Ellenby nor
Clapper teaches or suggests displaying “at least some of the descriptive
information along with a live display of the video received from the image
sensor as the plurality of images are being captured,” as recited in their base
claim. Appeal Br. 23. For the reasons given above with respect to claims 1,
2, and 11, we do not find this reason persuasive. Second, Appellant
contends that
although the GPS data, in Clapper, may be associated with one
or more video clips, there is no indication that the GPS
information may be updated in real time when the image sensor
captures images of different objects. Thus, Clapper cannot be
used to teach or suggest updating the descriptive information in
real time when the image sensor captures images of different
objects, as recited by pending claim [9 or ]18.
Id. at 23–24. Nevertheless, the Examiner relies on Kimura, not Clapper, to
teach or suggest this limitation. Final Act. 4.
Appellant does not contend that Kimura fails to teach or suggest the
corresponding limitation of claim 1. Further, Kimura discloses, “[i]t is
preferable that when each information is detected, contents of the detection
are recorded at a prescribed position on control section 5 and each data is
displayed on the display section 15 simultaneously.” Kimura, 15:45–48
(emphasis added). Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner
errs in rejecting claims 9 and 18 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Kimura, Ellenby, and Clapper, and we sustain that rejection.
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

13

3. Claims 10 and 19
As noted above, the Examiner also rejects claims 10 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kimura, Ellenby,
and Clapper. Final Act. 6, 7. Claim 10 depends directly from independent
claim 2 and recites, in the systems of claim 2, “the instructions are further
executable by the microprocessor to associate the location from the location
sensor with successive frames of the image from the image sensor.” Appeal
Br. 28 (Claims App.). Claim 19 depends directly from independent claim 11
and recites substantially the same limitation to the methods of claim 11. Id.
at 29.
The Examiner finds, “[Kimura] in view of Ellenby discloses the
system of claim 2, wherein the instructions are further executable by the
microprocessor to associate the location from the location sensor with
successive frames of the image from image sensor (column 11 lines 66 -
column 12 lines 6).” Final Act. 6. In particular, referring to Kimura’s
Figure 4, Kimura discloses:
FIG. 4 shows an example of a display of data written in a
photographed image plane.
Images are displayed on the upper part of the
photographed image plane and data are displayed on the lower
part thereof.
Data (1) represent a year, a month, a day, an hour and a
minute of photographing, (2) represents a latitude of a
photographing position, and (3) represents a longitude.
Kimura, 11:66–12:6 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner finds the
combined teachings of Kimura and Ellenby teach or suggest this limitation.
Appellant disagrees and contends that although Kimura may teach or
suggest associating the location of the location sensor with an image,
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

14

Kimura does not teach or suggest associating the location from the location
sensor in successive frames of the image, as recited in claims 10 and 19.
Appeal Br. 24–25. The Examiner makes no response to this contention. See
Ans. 4.
In the absence of any response from the Examiner to Appellant’s
contention, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 19. On this
record, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 10 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kimura,
Ellenby, and Clapper.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1–9, 11–18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as obvious over the combined teachings of
Kimura, Ellenby, and Clapper.
2. The Examiner errs in rejecting claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, as obvious over the combined teachings of Kimura, Ellenby,
and Clapper.
3. Thus, on this record, claims 1–9, 11–18, and 20 are not patentable, but
claims 10 and 19 are not unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9, 11–18, and 20, but
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 19.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Kimura, Ellenby,
Clapper
1–9, 11–
18, 20
10, 19
Appeal 2019-003209
Application 13/855,502

15

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART