Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2017

13605416 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017)

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.
13/605,416 09/06/2012 Yong-gook PARK 784-177 6818
66547 7590 02/10/2017
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, TERRELL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2017 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONG-GOOK PARK, BUM-JOO LEE, SAY JANG,
JI-SU JUNG, and SEUNG-HWAN HONG
Appeal 2016-001190
Application 13/605,416
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—12 and 14—20, the only claims
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-001190
Application 13/605,416
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to managing received or
generated content. Spec. 1:14—15. The received or generated content may
include multimedia content such as a picture, a video, a moving image file,
an audio file, or a document. Spec. 7:6—9. Claim 1, which is illustrative,
reads as follows:
1. A method of managing content in a device, the method
comprising:
detecting, at a processor of the device, whether content is
received or generated at the device;
generating, by the processor, a group comprising the
received or generated content and another content; and
generating, by the processor, identification information of
the group;
generating, by the processor, a combined group, which
includes the group and another group, based on a determination
of whether the generated identification information is identical
to identification information of the another group;
displaying content of the combined group on the device,
wherein the another content includes content received or
generated before the detected received or generated content.
Rejections
Claims 1—5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14—17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bryant et al.
(US 2004/0205286 Al; published Oct. 14, 2004) (“Bryant”), Hanson et al.
(US 2011/0235858 Al; published Sept. 29, 2011) (“Hanson”), and Ayatsuka
et al. (US 2008/0301586 Al; published Dec. 4, 2008) (“Ayatsuka”). Final
Act. 6-33.
2
Appeal 2016-001190
Application 13/605,416
Claims 6, 7, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Bryant, Hanson, Ayatsuka, and
Hiroshi et al. (JP 10-254746; published Sept. 25, 1998) (“Hiroshi”). Final
Act. 33—41.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Bryant,
Hanson, and Ayatsuka teaches or suggests “generating, by the processor, a
combined group, which includes the group and another group, based on a
determination of whether the generated identification information is
identical to identification information of the another group,” as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 6-41; Ans. 2—\. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend the combination of Bryant, Hanson, and Ayatsuka
fails to teach or suggest “generating, by the processor, a combined group,
which includes the group and another group, based on a determination of
whether the generated identification information is identical to identification
information of the another group,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4—5;
3
Appeal 2016-001190
Application 13/605,416
Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants contend “the combination of cited
references fails to provide any disclosure relating to a determination relating
to whether group identification information is identical, and also fails to
provide any disclosure relating to a combined group that includes two
groups comprising content.” App. Br. 4; see also Reply Br. 2—3.
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds (Final Act. 8, citing Hanson 179) Hanson’s metadata about digital
images teaches or suggests the claimed “identification information,” which
is consistent with Appellants’ Specification (see Spec. 14:28—15:7). The
Examiner further finds Hanson’s teaching of analyzing the metadata to
identity a common feature among two or more of the images and then
forming a grouping of the two or more images based on the identified
common feature teaches or suggests generating a group based on a
determination of whether the generated identification information of the
images is identical. Final Act. 8 (citing Hanson || 79—81); Ans. 3. The
Examiner acknowledges Hanson does not explicitly teach that the grouping
of the two or more of the images generates a combined group, as required by
claim 1, but finds it would be obvious to do so based on the teachings of
Bryant and Ayatsuka. Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 3.
Appellants’ contentions do not take into account what the collective
teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art and, therefore, are ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
4
Appeal 2016-001190
Application 13/605,416
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). The reasoning
in Keller is applicable here as Appellants fail to explain why it would not be
obvious to combine Hanson’s teaching of analyzing the metadata to identity
a common feature among two or more of the images and then forming a
grouping of the two or more images based on the identified common feature
(Hanson || 79-81) with Ayatsuka’s groups of images (Ayatsuka 170)
having a tag (e.g., metadata) assigned thereto. Ayatsuka 167 (“For
example, a tag is automatically attached to images manually grouped or the
group. When the tag is attached to the group, it reflects to the respective
images therein.”). As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Bryant, Hanson, and Ayatsuka teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 and claims 2—12 and 14—20, which recite corresponding limitations
and are not separately argued with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—12 and 14—20 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
5