Ex Parte Bodlaender

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 2010

10520199 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2010)

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.
10/520,199 01/04/2005 Maarten Peter Bodlaender NL 020605 2693
24737 7590 09/21/2010
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
EXAMINER
HOANG, SON T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MAARTEN PETER BODLAENDER
____________

Appeal 2009-5009
Application 10/520,199
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and STEPHEN
C. SIU Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL 1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-5009
Application 10/520,199

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 7-20. The Appellant
appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
INVENTION
The Appellant describes the invention at issue on appeal as
"associating a classification parameter with [a] data object [in a database],
wherein the classification parameter is associated with the data object when
a value of the source parameter satisfies at least one criterion." (Spec. 2.)
"In this way, data objects may be classified prior to query and search, and a
search may be aimed at one parameter only, the classification parameter.
This highly reduces the search time, especially when a query with multiple
variables is inputted." (Id.)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method for classification of a data object in a database,
comprising:
obtaining at least one source parameter associated with
the data object, and associating a classification parameter with
the data object based on a value of the at least one source
parameter satisfying at least one criterion corresponding to the
classification parameter,
wherein the database includes further data objects having
at least one further source parameter associated therewith and
wherein the method includes:
Appeal 2009-5009
Application 10/520,199

3
identifying similar further data objects having equal
values of at least one further classification parameter;
identifying similarity of values of the further source
parameter of the further similar data objects having equal
further classification parameters; and
associating the further classification parameter with the
data object when at least one of the at least one source
parameter of the data object is similar to the further source
parameter of the further similar data objects.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Augmented Album: Situation-dependent System for a
Personal Digital Video/Image Collection ("Hewagamage").
Claim 8 stands rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Hewagamage and USP 6,009,439 ("Shiomi").

CLAIMS 1-5 AND 9-20
Based on the Appellant's arguments, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1-5 and 9-20 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUES
Therefore, the issues before us are (1) whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Hewagamage discloses at least two classification parameters as
required by claim 1 and (2) whether he erred in finding that the same
reference discloses storing further classification parameters and similarity
Appeal 2009-5009
Application 10/520,199

4
value criterion for associating a new data object with the further
classification parameter as required by claims 7 and 8.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Hewagamage describes its invention as follows.
Augmented Album is an application developed to demonstrate
how the user-situations can be used to provide easy-to-use and
easy-to-remember interface for the management and retrieval
of digital pictures that consist of both digital video clips and
still images. In this system, the contextual information such as
the location, time, and user's events, are captured when a
picture is taken. It represents the meaning of the picture us well
as its content information to some extent and thus, benefits us to
retrieve images/video clips. At the same time, the contextual
information could be used to make more realistic organization
of those pictures on a computer system.

ANALYSIS
Regarding the first issue, "[i]t is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim
under § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim, and that anticipation is a fact question . . . ." In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457
(Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Here, Hewagamage "take[s] three parameters into account to interpret
user's active context as we treat the personal photographing is a mobile user
activity, namely the user's geographic location, time and corresponding
events that motivate the user to take pictures." (P. 323, § 1.) We agree with
the Examiner's finding that the reference's event parameter constitutes a
Appeal 2009-5009
Application 10/520,199

5
classification parameter "of a group of pictures having similar time and/or
location (source parameter) when being taken." (Ans. 18.) The Appellant
"[a]ssum[es], in argument, that Hewagamage's event parameter is a
classification parameter based on the location and/or time parameter," (App.
Br. 8.), but argues that " the Office action fails to identify where
Hewagamage teaches a further classification parameter . . . ." (Id.)
The reference, however, teaches more than one event, each of which
would have a corresponding event classification parameter. For example,
Hewagamage explains that plural "[e]vent categories are used to group
images/video clips as a way to show the contextual relevancy of those icons.
When the user selects a particular event category, then icons appeared in the
Map and Time Frame Components are restricted to be the ones in that
category." (P. 325, § 4.)
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner's finding that "when a user
selects an event category (classification parameter) with predefined criterion
and/or condition for its pictures' time and/or location (source parameter), any
picture that has satisfied time and/or location will be grouped to the
particularly selected event category (classification parameter)." (Ans. 18.)
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
Hewagamage discloses at least two classification parameters as required by
claim 1.
Regarding the second issue, [i]n an ex parte appeal, the Board "is
basically a board of review — we review . . . rejections made by patent
examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001).
"The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby
the examiner . . . invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve
Appeal 2009-5009
Application 10/520,199

6
patentability in the first instance." Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110,
1112 (BPAI 1999). "The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual
basis." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Here, the Examiner finds that "(Events Component in the system is
[sic] used to shows event categories grouping images/video clips as a way to
shows contextual relevancy of data object taken at same location and/or
time, [Page 325, Left Column, Lines 50-58], [Page 325, Right Column,
Lines 50- 58])." (Ans. 8-9.) The Appellant argues that "Hewagamage fails
to teach storing further classification parameters and similarity value
criterion for associating a new data object with the further classification
parameter . . . ." (Appeal Br. 9.) We agree with the Appellant that "the
Office action fails to identify where Hewagamage provides this teaching."
(Id.) The Examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of
Shiomi cures the aforementioned deficiency of Hewagamage.
We will not resort to speculations or assumptions to fix the
Examiner's failure to explain where, if anywhere, the reference teaches such
storing. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that
Hewagamage discloses storing further classification parameters and
similarity value criterion for associating a new data object with the further
classification parameter as required by claims 7 and 8.

Appeal 2009-5009
Application 10/520,199

7
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-5 and 9-20 but reverse the
rejections of claims 7 and 8. No time for taking any action connected with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Tkl

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR NY 10510