Ex Parte Goldman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2016

13057734 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/057,734 02/04/2011
22879 7590 03/10/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason D. Goldman
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.
82621159 4917
EXAMINER
CHANNA V AJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON D. GOLDMAN, PHILIP M. WALKER,
JAMES L. LONG, and ERIC PETERSON
Appeal2014-003203
Application 13/057,734
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a file system manager that organizes
content into albums using tags. See Abstract of Appellants' Specification.
Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative of the invention and are reproduced
below.
1. A data processing system embodied in computer-readable
Appeal2014-003203
Application 13/057,734
program code stored on a non-transient computer-readable
medium and executable by a processor, the data processing
system when executed by a processor comprising:
a file system manager that organizes content into albums
by tagging comprising:
a filename utility that sets a unique filename for each file
of uploaded files across a plurality of albums; and
an album manager utility that manages an album
according to a list of tags, the tags including unique content file
references and content metadata, whereby a file instance in a
cross-section of the tags is included in a plurality of albums.
11. A data processing system embodied in computer-readable
program code stored on a non-transient computer-readable
medium, which when executed by a processor comprises:
a graphical user interface that models context of
photographic content comprising:
a pattern recognition utility that analyzes an uploaded
digital photograph, detects patterns in the digital photograph, and
generates a collection of detected patterns;
a user-interactive utility that presents the collection of
detected patterns to a user for identification and receives
identification for corresponding detected patterns selected by the
user; and
a photograph association utility that associates a set of
identifications with the photograph.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-20 based upon obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 1-11 and 13-20 of US Application No.
2
Appeal2014-003203
Application 13/057,734
13/058,343. 1 Final Action 3--4.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-5 and 7-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jiang (US 2005/0102635 Al, published
May 12, 2005). Final Action 5-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 11-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jiang and Hwang (US
2008/0147726 Al, published June 19, 2008). Final Action 9-14.
ISSUES
Claims 1--4 and 7-9
Appellants argue, on pages 6-7 of the Appeal Brief, and pages 3-5 of
the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error. These arguments present us with the following three issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding Jiang teaches a filename utility
that sets a unique filename for each file of uploaded files across a
plurality of albums?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding Jiang teaches an album manager
utility that manages an album according to a list of tags that
include unique content file references and content metadata?
c) Did the Examiner err in finding Jiang teaches a file instance in a
cross-section of tags is included in a plurality of albums?
1 The rejection of claims 1-20 based on obviousness-type double patenting
is not on appeal, and thus not before us. App. Br. 5. We note that patent
application 13/058,343 has been abandoned as of Aug. 15, 2014.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated Oct. 8, 2013,
the Reply Brief dated Dec. 23, 2013, the Final Action mailed June 14, 2013,
and the Examiner's Answer mailed Nov. 7, 2013.
3
Appeal2014-003203
Application 13/057,734
The rejections of claims 2--4 and 7-9 provide us with the same issues
as claim 1, as Appellants have not provided separate arguments for these
claims. App. Br. 8-9.
Claims 5 and 10
Appellants argue, on pages 8-9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 5---6 of
the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 5 is in
error. These arguments present us with the following issue:
d) Did the Examiner err in finding Jiang teaches an image analyzer
that analyzes image content of uploaded files?
Appellants' arguments directed to claim 10 provide us with the same
issue as claim 5. App. Br. 8-9.
Claim 6
Appellants argue, on pages 9-10 of the Appeal Brief and pages 6-7 of
the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 6 is in
error. These arguments present us with the following issue:
e) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Jiang and
Hwang teaches a pattern recognition utility that analyzes an
uploaded digital photograph and generates unique content file
references and/or content metadata according to the analysis?
Claims 11 and 18
Appellants argue, on pages 10-11 of the Appeal Brief and pages 7-8
of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 11 is
in error. These arguments present us with the following issue:
4
Appeal2014-003203
Application 13/057,734
t) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Jiang and
Hwang teaches a user-interactive utility that presents a collection
of detected patterns to a user for identification?
Appellants' arguments directed to independent claim 18 present the
same issues as discussed with respect to claim 11. App. Br. 14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We disagree with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1--4 and 6-9. However, we concur with
Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5 and 10-
20.
Claims 1--4 and 7-9
Regarding issue (a), Appellants argue Jiang does not teach a filename
utility setting a unique filename for each file, but teaches merely uploading,
downloading, and navigating photo albums. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. The
Examiner finds Jiang' s device sets unique filenames for images in albums.
Ans. 2-3 (citing Jiang i-f 55 ("Yahoo!-enabled phone 100 with ...
functionality for capturing images, and saving ... data of images" (emphasis
added)), i-fi-1 93-97 ("[ t ]he list of photos includes, for example: ... alex.jpg[,]
alhambra.jpg")). We have reviewed the Examiner's findings and the cited
portions of Jiang, and we concur with the Examiner's findings that Jiang's
phone includes a filename utility that saves images under unique filenames.
See Jiang i-fi-1 93-97.
5
Appeal2014-003203
Application 13/057,734
Regarding issue (b ), Appellants argue Jiang does not teach a list of
tags for album management as required in claim 1. App. Br. 6. According
to Appellants, the portions of Jiang cited by the Examiner teach only a list of
images in an expanded album node. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants'
arguments do not address the Examiner's specific findings that Jiang's
album names are a list of tags that identify album images. Ans. 3 (citing
Jiang i-fi-188-92). We agree with the Examiner's findings. Jiang's album
names for identifying structures in an album's images (see Jiang, albums
called animals, garden, i-fi-189-90) are commensurate with the broad
description of "tags" in Appellants' Specification. 3 Ans. 3--4 (citing Spec.
i-fl 0).
Appellants further argue, with respect to issue (b ), Jiang does not
teach the claimed tags include unique content file references and content
metadata, but teaches only a jpg file extension that is neither a content file
reference nor content metadata. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4--5. The Examiner
finds content file references are taught by Jiang's album structure indicating
albums' contents, and content metadata is taught by image file names and
extensions. Final Act. 6 (citing Jiang i-fi-187-106); Ans. 4. We agree.
Jiang's album structure references terms such as animals and garden that
point to the content of image files in the album. Appellants' arguments have
not addressed these specific findings by the Examiner. Ans. 4 (citing Jiang
i-fi-187-92). Moreover, the term "metadata" is broadly described in
3 Appellants' Specification provides "tags for usage by a file system
manager can identifY structures within images." Spec. i-f l 0 (emphasis
added).
6
Appeal2014-003203
Application 13/057,734
Appellants' Specification as including varied information such as filename.
See Spec. i-fi-f 19, 22. Jiang teaches such metadata.
Regarding issue ( c ), Appellants argue Jiang does not teach a file
instance in a cross-section of tags is included in a plurality of albums. App.
Br. 7; Reply Br. 4. According to Appellants, Jiang merely teaches
collapsing and expanding album nodes to display a photo list. App. Br. 7.
We do not agree. Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's
findings that a file instance in Jiang is included both in a server online
album, and in a phone mobile album that is a duplicate of the online album.
Final Act. 5 (citing Jiang i163). Moreover, paragraphs 89-91 of Jiang
disclose image files associated with a tag-a mobile album's name---of a
plurality of tags. Ans. 4 (citing Jiang i-fi-187-92).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1, and independent claim 8 and dependent claims 2--4, 7,
and 9, not separately argued. App. Br. 8-9.
Claims 5 and 10
Regarding issue ( d), the Examiner finds Jiang's application
environment analyzes and classifies digital pictures in content-based albums
such as animals, garden, and kids, and therefore Jiang discloses an analyzer
that analyzes image content of uploaded files as recited in claim 5. Ans. 5
(citing Jiang i-fi-155, 57, 87-91). Appellants argue although Jiang teaches
digital images in albums, Jiang fails to disclose analysis of image content by
an analyzer. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants. The cited
portions of Jiang do not teach image content analysis by an analyzer to enter
images into content-based albums; rather, Jiang teaches a user manipulates
7
Appeal2014-003203
Application 13/057,734
the images and the albums. See Jiang iii! 62---63. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5. Similarly, rejected dependent
claim 10 recites a computer-executed method that analyzes image content of
files for entry into an album view. App. Br. 8. For the same reasons as
claim 5, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10.
Claim 6
Appellants' arguments directed to issue ( e) assert Jiang does not teach
a utility that analyzes a digital photograph and generates unique content file
references and/or content metadata according to the analysis, as required in
claim 6. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 6-7. Further, Appellants state Hwang
does not make up for the deficiency in Jiang. App. Br. 10.
The Examiner finds Hwang analyzes a photo file using pattern
recognition criteria and appends metadata to the photo file, thereby teaching
pattern recognition that analyzes a digital photo and generates metadata
according to the analysis as required in claim 6. Final Act. 9-10 (citing
Hwang iii! 6-8, 21); Ans. 7-8. Appellants' arguments have not addressed
these findings by the Examiner, and merely restate, "the disclosure of
'pattern recognition' in Hwang is insufficient to make up for the deficiency
in Jiang noted above." Reply Br. 7. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 6. Thus,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
Claims 11-20
Regarding issue (f), the Examiner finds Jiang's graphical interface is a
user-interactive utility that presents a collection of albums to a user, and
8
Appeal2014-003203
Application 13/057,734
Hwang teaches pattern recognition in a digital photograph. Final Act. 11
(citing Jiang i-fi-186-91, 102-107; Hwang i-fi-16-8, 21). The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to incorporate Hwang's pattern
recognition in Jiang's graphical interface to obtain a user-interactive utility
that presents a collection of detected patterns to a user, as recited in claim
11. Final Act. 11.
Appellants argue Jiang teaches opening and closing albums, but does
not teach a user-interactive utility that presents a collection of detected
patterns to a user. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 7. Appellants further argue
although Hwang teaches pattern recognition, Hwang does not teach the
specific claim recitation of presenting a collection of detected patterns to a
user. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 8. We agree with Appellants the Examiner
has not shown Jiang or Hwang teaches the claimed user-interactive utility
that presents a collection of detected patterns to a user. The cited portions of
Jiang teach presenting albums, not patterns. See Jiang i-fi-1 88-91. The cited
portions of Hwang do not teach presenting patterns to a user, but only teach
photos are selected as album covers based on pattern recognition criteria.
See Hwang i-fi-1 6, 21.
Absent findings that Jiang or Hwang teaches a user-interactive utility
presenting detected patterns to a user, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 11, and dependent claims 12-17 similarly rejected.
Appellants also present substantially the same arguments for similarly
rejected independent claim 18, which recites a computer-executed method
that presents a collection of detected patterns to a user. App. Br. 14. For the
same reasons as claim 11, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 18 and its dependent claims 19 and 20 similarly rejected.
9
Appeal2014-003203
Application 13/057,734
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-9.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 10-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10