Ex Parte Co et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201613305352 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/305,352 11/28/2011 100462 7590 05/27/2016 Dority & Manning P,A, and Google Inc, Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chris CO 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. GGL-371 7602 EXAMINER HUTTON, NAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRIS CO and JAY ANT KOLHE Appeal2014-003640 Application 13/305,352 Technology Center 2100 Before: JEFFREYS. SMITH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 4--10, and 13-17. Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 20 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-003640 Application 13/305,352 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to suggesting interesting dates to explore images in a historical imagery database. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with the "disputed limitations" emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for suggesting a date to display an image, compnsmg: a memory; a processor coupled to the memory; a historical date suggestion module stored in the memory and executing on the processor and configured to: receive a request to display a geographic area having particular geographic coordinates to a user; identify a plurality of tiles, the plurality of tiles corresponding to the geographic area having the particular geographic coordinates in response to the received request; for each tile: identify a list of dates, each date being associated with a historical image geolocated at a geolocation of each tile on a particular date; and identify an oldest date in the list of dates; compile the oldest date from each tile into a suggested date list; and select a most recent date or most repeated date from the suggested date list as a suggested date for displaying the historical image, whereby the suggested date is selected to account for the age of available historical images and the availability of historical images having the suggested date within the image displayed to the user. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 5-10, and 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kirmse (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0054527 Al, published Mar. 4, 2010), Murakami (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0146787 2 Appeal2014-003640 Application 13/305,352 Al, published June 28, 2007), and Schunder (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0078512 Al, published Mar. 29, 2012). Final Act. 2-7. Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kirmse, Murakami, Schunder, and Gonano (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0222227 Al, published Sept. 3, 2009). Final Act. 8. OPINION With respect to independent claims 1 and 10, Appellants argue that the combination of Kirmse, Murakami, and Schunder does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations and that the combination of Kirmse, Murakami, and Schunder is improper. App. Br. 10-17. Appellants rely on these arguments for all remaining claims. App. Br. 17-18. With respect to the "compil[ing]" limitation, the Examiner relies on Murakami and Kirmse: Murakami teaches this limitation in that the system compiles the oldest date and time information among the date and time information of the group of the images into a representative history list (suggestion list) for each group of images that have the same group identifier ... Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time [] the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kirmse with the teachings of Murakami for the purpose of retaining a history of image data processed in an image processing apparatus, thereby making it possible to track the processing date and time of the specific image data. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Murakami i-f 44 and Kirmse i-f 94). Appellants argue error, stating: Even if the representative history list includes data picked based on date, Murakami does not describe that the list itself is a list of dates. Instead, Murakami' s representative history list includes a "list of thumbnail images of image data 3 Appeal2014-003640 Application 13/305,352 contained in the representative histories." (Murakami, i-f45.) Thus, Murakami fails to disclose "compil[ing] the oldest date from each tile into a suggested date list" as claimed in claims 1 and 10. App. Br. 11. The Examiner responds as follows: Murakami expressly discloses that the system forms a representative history list by picking the oldest processing history information (oldest date and time) from each processing history information group, see Murakami paragraph [0044]. The processing history information group is a group of dates, which are representative of the processing history dates of the images. The processing history information group is not the group of images. The representative history list is not picked from the group of images as the Appellant argues. The representative history list is picked from the group of dates that are representative of the processing history dates of the images. For example, See FIG. 2 of Murakami, the system comprises a group of images, i.e. dddd and pppp with the processing dates of bbbb and gggg respectively. bbbb and gggg forms the processing history information group (a list of dates). The system picks bbbb (oldest date) out of the processing history information group (bbbb and gggg, etc.), not out of the image group ( dddd and pppp, etc.) Ans. 3. We are unpersuaded of error. We agree with the Examiner that Murakami's "representative history list is not picked from the group of images" and that "[t]he representative history list is picked from the group of dates that are representative of the processing history dates of the images." Id. Moreover, Appellants unpersuasively argue against a single reference when the Examiner's rejection is based on what the combination of references would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually 4 Appeal2014-003640 Application 13/305,352 where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). With respect to the "select[ing]" limitation, the Examiner relies on Schunder, Kirmse, and Murakami, stating: Schunder teaches this limitation in that the system selects a date based on the total number of time used (most repeated) or the last date of use (most recent) as suggested date to the user, wherein the date shows the age and the availability of the image). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time [] the invention was made to modify the teachings of Kirmse as modified with the teachings of Schunder for the purpose of providing and updating the tile map data efficiently so that user convenience can be improved. Changes in road routes due to construction and city alterations can be indicated reliably so that the vehicle can be redirected efficiently. Final Act. 4--5(Schunderi-f149, Kirmse i1i167, 115-118, and Murakami i144). Appellants argue as follows: First, Schunder does not teach the claimed suggested date list "compiled from the oldest date from each tile." Rather tiles in Schunder are only "stored locally until a threshold is reached" and not in any organized list. ... Second, even if the suggested date list was disclosed by Schunder or other two references (which it is not), Schunder fails to select the suggested date from the suggested date list for displaying the historical image. Instead, Schunder uses a flag to determine "whether or not a particular tile is to be stored or discarded in favor of a new tile." ... Third, Schunder also fails to disclose "whereby the suggested date is selected to account for the age of available historical images and the availability of historical images having the suggested date within the image displayed to the user." Even if, for sake of argument, Schunder could select the claimed recent date or the most repeated date as a suggested date, (which it cannot not), Schunder still does not disclose how the suggested date accounts for multiple historical images. At most, the flag in 5 Appeal2014-003640 Application 13/305,352 Schunder only determines "whether or not a particular tile is to be stored or discarded in favor of a new tile." App. Br. 13. The Examiner responds by pointing out that Appellants' arguments are unpersuasively directed to a single reference, rather than the combination, and that Appellants impermissibly attempt to distinguish their invention based on an intended use, rather than a structural distinction. Ans. 4--7 ("the 'suggest date list is compiled from the oldest date from each tile' feature is taught by the Murakami" (citing Murakami i-f 44); "Whether the date is used for suggesting to user or used to determining other system functions is the intended use. Becuase Schunder structure is capable of performing its intended use, Schunder meets the claim limitation"; and "Kirmse discloses that the system provides the dates or range of dates to users for available map image tiles, wherein the dates account for the age of the available historical images of the map tiles" (citing Kirmse i-fi-1 67, 115-118)). We agree with the Examiner for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Appellants also argue that the combination of Kirmse, Murakami, and Schunder is improper because it "teaches away" from Appellants' claimed invention, the combination could not be made, and because the proposed combination is based on hindsight reconstruction. App. Br. 15-17. We are unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 7-14. We highlight the following for emphasis. 6 Appeal2014-003640 Application 13/305,352 First, a reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 53 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants' asserted "teaching away" deficiency in the Examiner's "logic" for combining the references (App. Br. 15 ("To a person of ordinary skill in the art, however, [the Examiner's] logic would only teach away from the purpose of the invention - which is suggesting a date to display a historical image of the past")) does not amount to an argument against obviousness, much less include argument or evidence sufficient to establish that that the Examiner's proposed combination includes a reference that "teaches away." Second, Appellants' "hindsight" argument (App. Br. 16 ("combining Murakami, a printing reference, with Kirmse and Schunder, is hindsight reconstruction")) lacks sufficient persuasive argument or evidence to convince us that the Examiner's rejection includes "knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant's disclosure." See In re Mclaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971). And third, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner's reasons for combining the references lacks "'some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). Specifically, the Examiner has shown all the elements of Appellants' claimed invention to exist in the prior art, and Appellants have not persuasively established that combining them would have been 7 Appeal2014-003640 Application 13/305,352 unpredictable. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 ("'The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."')). Accordingly, we find the Examiner to have supported the conclusion of obviousness with some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning. We are, therefore, unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 10. We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 10 and the Examiner's rejection of the remaining claims argued on the same grounds. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--10, and 13-17 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation