Ex Parte Svendsen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 12, 2010

10930719 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 12, 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.
10/930,719 08/31/2004 Hugh B. Svendsen 1104-205 7427
74548 7590 11/15/2010
FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova
100 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 160
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
HWA, SHYUE JIUNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2010 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 HUGH B. SVENDSEN
____________

Appeal 2009-006065
Application 10/930,719
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

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 2009-006065
Application 10/930,719

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-44, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for providing a network-
based photosharing service. The photosharing service includes a central
photosharing site having a server, and a plurality of peer nodes each
containing digital images. The method includes associating metadata with
each image that is to be shared. In response to the peer server receiving
search criteria based on the metadata submitted from a first one of the peer
nodes, the peer server returns a list of image locators for images matching
the search criteria to the first peer node. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method for providing a network-based
photosharing service, the photosharing service including a
central photosharing site having a server, and a plurality of peer
nodes each containing digital images, the method comprising:

(a) associating with each image that is to be shared on the
photosharing site from the peer nodes, metadata relating to the
images, said metadata comprising at least standardized
information about the position where the image was created;

(b) sharing the images on the photosharing site while
maintaining storage of the images on the respective peer nodes;

Appeal 2009-006065
Application 10/930,719

3
(c) in response to the server receiving standardized
location search criteria based on the metadata submitted from a
first peer node, returning at least one image locator for at least
one image matching the search criteria to the first peer node;
and

(d) generating on the first peer node a graphical
representation of the position being searched with at least one
image that matches the search criteria being displayed on the
same graphical representation.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-16, 18, 19, 22-28, 30, 31, 34-38, and 40-44 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Svendsen (US
2003/0063770 A1) and Toyama (US 2004/0070678 A1).
Claims 5, 11, 17, 21, 29, 33, 39, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Svendsen, Toyama, and Cazier (US
6,657,661 B1).
Claims 10, 20, 32, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Svendsen, Toyama, and Squilla (US 6,396,537
B1).2

2 Claim 44 depends from claim 43, which depends from claim 42. Claim 42
depends from claim 41. The statement of the rejection over Svendsen and
Toyama addresses claims 43 and 44 but does not address intervening claim
41 or 42. Further, the rejection of claim 42 over Svendsen, Toyama, and
Cazier does not include the Squilla reference applied against claim 41. In
any event, Appellant does not contest the evidentiary basis for the rejection
of claims 42-44.
Appeal 2009-006065
Application 10/930,719

4
Claim Groupings
In view of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the combination of Svendsen and Toyama
fails to teach “a graphical representation of the position being searched with
at least one image that matches the search criteria being displayed on the
same graphical representation” as recited in claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citations omitted).

Appeal 2009-006065
Application 10/930,719

5
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the combination of Svendsen and Toyama
does not teach “a graphical representation of the position being searched
with at least one image that matches the search criteria being displayed on
the same graphical representation.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner
finds that paragraph 12 of Toyama teaches that a traveler planning to go to
Rome in February could look at all of the photos taken in Rome in February
to determine what Rome weather is like at that time of year. Final Rejection
2-3. Appellant responds that this does not equate to displaying a graphical
representation, such as a map, along with images captured at the graphical
representation. According to Appellant, Toyama does not teach displaying a
graphical representation of the location itself, such as a map of Rome, along
with an image captured at Rome. App. Br. 9-10.
Appellant’s contention appears based on the premise that claim 1
requires the “graphical representation of the position” to be a map rather
than a photograph of the position. Reply Br. 3. However, claim 1 does not
recite that the “graphical representation” is a map. Although Appellant
points to other limitations of claim 1 as evidence that the graphical
representation is a map (Reply Br. 3-4), none of the limitations require that
the “graphical representation” be a map.
Further, according to Appellant, in one embodiment in the
Specification, the “graphical representation” is a map. App. Br. 9. The
disclosure thus implies that in other embodiments, the “graphical
representation” can be something other than a map, such as a photograph of
a location. Therefore, the scope of “a graphical representation of the
position being searched with at least one image that matches the search
Appeal 2009-006065
Application 10/930,719

6
criteria being displayed on the same graphical representation,” when read in
light of Appellant’s Specification, encompasses a photograph of a location
along with at least one image contained in the photograph that matches
search criteria.
Paragraph 12 of Toyama teaches that a person can query a database of
photographs by date and location where the photograph was taken. Toyama
thus provides an example of a traveler submitting a query to retrieve
photographs taken in Rome in February to determine what Rome weather is
like at that time of year. The photograph of a location in Rome is “a
graphical representation of the position being searched.” The image of the
weather at the location during February is “at least one image that matches
the search criteria being displayed on the same graphical representation.”
Further, because the location is part of the search query, the photograph of
the queried location by itself is both “a graphical representation of the
position being searched” and “at least one image that matches the search
criteria being displayed on the same graphical representation” within the
meaning of claim 1.
Appellant has not provided evidence or persuasive argument to
distinguish the photograph of a location taken at a specific time as taught by
Toyama from “a graphical representation of the position being searched with
at least one image that matches the search criteria being displayed on the
same graphical representation” as recited in claim 1. We therefore sustain
the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2-44 fall with claim
1.

Appeal 2009-006065
Application 10/930,719

7
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the combination of Svendsen and
Toyama fails to teach “a graphical representation of the position being
searched with at least one image that matches the search criteria being
displayed on the same graphical representation” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-16, 18, 19, 22-28, 30, 31, 34-38,
and 40-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Svendsen
and Toyama is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5, 11, 17, 21, 29, 33, 39, and 42 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Svendsen, Toyama, and Cazier is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10, 20, 32, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Svendsen, Toyama, and Squilla 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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-006065
Application 10/930,719

8

msc

FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova
100 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 160
Cary NC 27518