Ex Parte Bhatt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

13182409 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/182,409 07 /13/2011
26183 7590 06/15/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (APPLE)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nikhil Bhatt
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.
18814-0219001/Pl0556US1 6324
EXAMINER
COLEMAN, STEPHEN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIKHIL BHATT
Appeal2014-009532
Application 13/182,409
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L
Appellant 1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse. 2
1 Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Our decision refers to the Specification filed July 13, 2011 ("Spec."), the
Non-Final Office Action mailed Sep. 19, 2013 ("Non-Final Act."), the
Appeal Brief filed Feb. 14, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer
mailed July 3, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Sep. 3, 2014 ("Reply
Br.").
Appeal2014-009532
Application 13/182,409
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to zooming to faces depicted in images.
(Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method performed by one or more processes executing on a
computer system, the method comprising:
presenting, on a user interface viewable on a display
coupled to the computer system, one or more digital images;
receiving user input requesting to zoom to faces depicted
in the one or more digital images, where the faces include either
human faces or animal faces; and
in response to receiving the user input and for each of the
one or more digital images, automatically presenting on the user
interface a zoomed view of the digital image that displays an
enlarged representation of a portion of the digital image showing
an instance of a face depicted in the displayed portion of the
digital image, the zoomed view of the digital image covering an
area of the user interface configured to present the one or more
digital images, the zoomed view being presented at a zoom-level
that is selected to maximize a fraction of the displayed portion of
the digital image occupied by the face.
(App. Br. 26- Claims App'x.)
REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 18 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
(Non-Final Act. 2-3.)
(2) Claims 1-5, 10, 14--17, 24--26, and 29-33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Shiratani (US 2002/0181784 Al, publ. Dec. 5,
2002), Nose (US 2008/0205869 Al, publ. Aug. 28, 2008), and In re Venner,
262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958). (Non-Final Act. 3-11.)
2
Appeal2014-009532
Application 13/182,409
(3) Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Shiratani, Nose, Bourdev (US 7,813,526 Bl, iss. Oct. 12 2010), andin re
Venner. (Non-Final Act. 11-14.)
(4) Claims 11, 12, 19, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Shiratani, Nose, In re Venner, and Bourdev. (Non-Final
Act. 14--19.)
(5) Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Shiratani, Nose, In re Venner, Bourdev, and Okamura (2008/0226140 Al,
publ. Sep. 18, 2008). (Non-Final Act. 19.)
(6) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Shiratani, Nose, In re Venner, and Official Notice. (Non-Final Act. 19-20.)
(7) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Shiratani, Nose, In re Venner, and Okamura. (Non-Final Act. 20.)
(8) Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Shiratani, Nose, In re Venner, and Xiao (US 2007 /0053585 Al; publ.
Mar. 8, 2007). (Non-Final Act. 20-22.)
(9) Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Shiratani, Nose, In re Venner, Xiao, and KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007). (Non-Final Act. 22.)
ANALYSIS
§ 112, First Paragraph
The Examiner finds the Specification does not provide a written
description to support the limitation of claim 18 reciting "where the object
comprises a non-human animal face." (Non-Final Act. 3.) Appellant notes
the Specification recites "a portion of an image that depicts a human or
3
Appeal2014-009532
Application 13/182,409
animal face" ci11 ), "faces include either human faces or animal faces" ci1 5),
and "the object can be a human face. As another example, the object can be
an animal face." (i-f 11). (App. Br. 9--10, Reply Br. 1.) On the basis of these
disclosures, we agree with Appellant the Specification provides adequate
written description for claim 18.
The Examiner also finds the Specification fails to provide adequate
written description for claim 30. (Non-Final Act. 3.) Appellant cites to the
Specification which states "displayed in the predetermined region of the user
interface at a zoom-level that is selected (i) to be no larger than a
predetermined zoom-level." (i-f 13). (App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 2.) We further
note that the Specification provides "the predetermined zoom-level can be
100%." (i-f 14.) We find these disclosures adequately support claim 30 for
purposes of the written description requirement.
§ 103(a)
Argument Concerning Examiner's Failure to Respond
Appellant argues the Examiner's Non-Final Office Action was not
responsive to Appellant's Response filed Aug. 19, 2013. (App. Br. 10-12.)
Matters concerning the propriety or completeness of an Examiner's Office
Action are reviewable by Petition to the Commissioner under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.181. Further, the Appeal Brief should not reference previous responses
by Appellants. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1205.02.
Accordingly, we do not address this argument further in this appeal.
4
Appeal2014-009532
Application 13/182,409
Arguments Concerning Claims 1, 10, 15, and 29
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 29 should be
reversed because Shiratani, Nose, and Venner do not teach or suggest the
following features of the claim 1:
receiving user input requesting to zoom to faces depicted in the
one or more digital images ... presenting on the user interface a
zoomed view of the digital image ... showing an instance of a
face ... the zoomed view of the digital image covering an area
of the user interface configured to present the one or more digital
images ... presented at a zoom-level that is selected to maximize
a fraction of the displayed portion of the digital image occupied
by the face."
(App. Br. 12, 26-Claims App'x.) Claims 15 and 29 recite similar
limitations. Appellant argues inter alia that Nose describes zooming while
photographing images by half-pressing the shutter button, causing zooming
of the face, before full-press to capture an image. (App. Br. 14--15 citing
Nose i1i126, 27, 153, 155, Figs. 6, 7 A, 7B, 8, 10.) Because Nose zooms
before capturing an image, Appellant argues Nose fails to teach the claimed
"receiving user input requesting to zoom to faces depicted in the one or more
digital images" that are presented "on a user interface viewable on a display
coupled to the computer system," as recited in claim 1. Appellant further
argues claim 15 and 29 recite similar limitations to claim 1 and are
distinguishable from the combined references for similar reasons.
We agree with Appellant that Nose fails to describe "receiving user
input requesting to zoom to faces depicted in the one or more digital images"
that are presented "on a user interface viewable on a display coupled to the
computer system" in light of the Examiner's finding that Shiratani is silent
regarding receiving user input and zooming in response to the user input.
5
Appeal2014-009532
Application 13/182,409
(Non-Final Act. 4.). Nose's zooming by half-pressing a shutter button
occurs before capture of an image with its "image taking device," whereas
the claims are directed to post-capture processing of images with a computer
system. As we find this argument persuasive, we do not reach Appellant's
remaining arguments concerning claims 1, 15, and 29. Thus, we do not
sustain the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1, 15, and 29, or the
claims that depend therefrom.
Appellant argues the rejection of claim 10 should be reversed because
Shiratani and Nose fail to show "in response to receiving the first user input,
automatically presenting ... concurrent zoomed views of the two or more
digital images ... includes an instance of the first face" and "receiving a
second user input; and in response to receiving the second user input,
switching to automatically present ... other concurrent zoomed views of the
two or more digital images ... including an instance of the second face," as
recited in claim 10. (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4--5.)
Reviewing the cited sections of Shiratani and Nose, we agree with
Appellant the claimed limitation is not shown in those references,
particularly as neither reference teaches each image depicts both first and
second faces. (See Reply Br. 4.) As Venner does not show the deficiencies
of the references, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10. Our decision
on this basis renders it unnecessary to consider Appellant's remaining
arguments concerning claim 10.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's prior art rejection of claim 10
or the claims that depend therefrom.
6
Appeal2014-009532
Application 13/182,409
Argument Concerning Claim 6
Appellant argues inter alia that Shiratani, Nose, Bourdev, and Venner
fail to teach or suggest the following limitations of claim 6:
in response to receiving the first input, automatically presenting
... a first zoomed view ... at a zoom-level that is selected to
maximize a fraction of the displayed first portion of the digital
image occupied by the first face; receiving a second user input;
and in response to receiving the second user input, switching
from the first zoomed view to automatically presenting . . . a
second zoomed view ... at a different zoom-level that is selected
to maximize the fraction of the displayed second portion of the
digital image occupied by the second face.
(App. Br. 19, 27 - Claims App'x, Reply Br. 3--4.)
We agree with Appellant's argument because the cited references do
not mention any capability to switch between automatically-presented
zoomed views of first and second faces based on first and second user
inputs, as recited in claim 6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 6, or the claims that depend therefrom.
Argument Concerning Claims 21 and 22
Claims 21 and 22 depend from independent claim 15. Because we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 15, we likewise do not sustain the rejection
of claims 21 and 22 for the reasons stated with respect to claim 15.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons stated.
REVERSED
7