Ex Parte Engström et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

12505642 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/505,642 0712012009
58342 7590 08/01/2016
WARREN A, SKLAR (SOER)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19THFLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jimmy Engstrom
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.
PS09 0467US1 2620
EXAMINER
SAEED, USMAAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIMMY ENGSTROM and BO LARSSON
Appeal2014-009705
Application 12/505,642
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Mobile
Communications AB. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009705
Application 12/505,642
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a system for tagging multiple digital
images. Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An electronic device comprising:
a display for displaying a rendering of a plurality of digital
images;
an interface for receiving on the display of the rendered
images an input of an area of interest within at least one of the
plurality of rendered images, and for receiving on the display of
the rendered images an input of a selection of images from
among the plurality of rendered images to be associated with the
area of interest;
an input device for receiving an input of a tag based on the
area of interest to be applied to the associated images; and
a controller configured to receive the tag input and to
apply the tag to each of the associated images.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 16-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart (US 2011/0145275, Al; Jun.
16, 2011) and Luo (US 2010/0226566 Al; Sept. 9, 2010).
2. Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stewart and Bonev (US 2009/0216569; Aug. 27, 2009).
3. Claims 10, 12-15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart and Lennon (US 6,718,063 Bl; Apr.
6, 2004).
2
Appeal2014-009705
Application 12/505,642
I. Claim 1
ANALYSIS
A. Whether Stewart Teaches or Suggests "an interface for
receiving on the display of the rendered images an input of an
area of interest within at least one of the plurality of rendered
. " zmages
Appellants argue "Stewart does not disclose or suggest any
mechanism to input an area of interest within a rendered digital image as
claimed." App. Br. 8.
We disagree. The Examiner finds Stewart teaches the disputed
limitation in Figures 26-29. Final Act. 2 (citing Stewart Figs. 26-27; i-fi-130-
32), 17 (citing Stewart i-fi-f 118, 141 ); Ans. 3--4. Figure 28, in particular,
shows that a user can create tags from photographs by cropping the
photographs and paragraph 141 describes selecting a box around a portion of
an image with a pointing device. See also Stewart i-fi-f 139-140. We find that
cropping a photograph or selecting a portion of an image with a pointing
device teaches "receiving ... an input of an area of interest within at least
one of the plurality of rendered images," as recited in claim 1.
B. Whether the Combination of Stewart and Luo Teach or Suggest
"an interface ... for receiving on the display of the rendered
images an input of a selection of images from among the
plurality of rendered images to be associated with the area of
interest"
Appellants further argue the combination of Luo and Stewart does not
teach "an interface for receiving on the display of the rendered images an
input of a selection of images from among the plurality of rendered images
3
Appeal2014-009705
Application 12/505,642
to be associated with the area of interest," as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
11-12. As to Luo, Appellants argue "[g]iven the use of such statistical
model, Luo does not teach any interface for selecting associated images
from a display rendering at all." App. Br. 11. Regarding Stewart,
Appellants argue "Stewart does not teach to define an area of interest at all
within one of the rendered images, it follows that Stewart also does not teach
the claimed association based on the area of interest." App. Br. 11.
We do not find these arguments to be persuasive. Luo teaches that a
user interface can be used to select a portion of a seed image (i.e. an area of
interest) and identify it as the foreground of the seed image. Final Act. 3
(citing Luo Fig. 3, i-f 19). By use of a statistical model, other portions of
images that are similar to the selected foreground of the seed image, are then
associated with the seed image. Id. Stewart teaches a user interface which
can be used to crop or select a portion of an image (i.e. an area of interest)
and to create a tag from the cropped or selected portion of the image. See
Stewart Figs. 28-29, i-fi-1139-141). Stewart further teaches a user interface
in which multiple images are rendered and through which a tag, in the form
of a cropped image, can be associated with the multiple images. Stewart
Fig. 27; see also Stewart i-f 138-141. Thus, the combination of the two
references teaches "an interface for receiving ... an area of interest within at
least one of the plurality of rendered images," and an interface "for receiving
... an input of a selection of images from among the plurality of rendered
images to be associated with the area of interest," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and of
claim 16 which was argued together with claim 1. See App. Br. 12. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-11, and 16-20 for which
4
Appeal2014-009705
Application 12/505,642
Appellants rely only on the arguments made for claims 1 and 16. See App.
Br. 12 and 16.
II. Claim 12
A. Whether Stewart Teaches or Suggests "a controller ...
configured to generate a plurality of tag suggestions based on
the common subject matter to be applied to each of the
associated images"
Appellants argue that Stewart's "autocomplete feature, however, does
not generate 'tag suggestions based on the common subject matter'
depicted in the image portions." App. Br. 13-14.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds paragraph 143 of
Stewart teaches the disputed limitation which the Examiner finds "discloses
[a] list of suggested tags to select from." Final Act. 13. Paragraph 143 of
Stewart teaches that a user can create new tags by typing in the label for the
tag. While the user is typing, the application can autocomplete the tag and
also provide a dropdown menu of suggested tag that possibly match the
typed label. Stewart i-f 143. We agree with the Appellants that this form of
autosuggestion is not based on the common subject matter of image portions
but is instead based on the spelling of the tag label.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12
and of claims 13-15 which depend from claim 12.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and 16-20 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 12-15 is reversed.
5
Appeal2014-009705
Application 12/505,642
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6