Ex Parte Vaananen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2017

13390526 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 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.
13/390,526 02/15/2012 Mikko Vaananen P201878PCT-U S 5227
129597 7590 10/06/2017
Mikko Kalervo Vaananen
PO Box 346
Street address: Unioninkatu 20-22, Suite B351
Helsinki, 00131
FINLAND
EXAMINER
LE, HUNG D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/06/2017 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):
patents @ suinno.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO VAANANEN
Appeal 2016-001450
Application 13/390,526
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 29-32. See App. Br.
12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on September 19, 2017.
Appeal 2016-001450
Application 13/390,526
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application “relates to searching documents from the Internet or
databases.” Spec. 1:6. Claims 1,3, 15, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a search query comprising an image from a
mobile phone camera;
identifying at least one object from the image, the object
being a visual, non-text object;
combining the visual, non-text object from the image and
text derived from the image or input speech to obtain a mixed
combination search input query;
searching at least one document using the mixed
combination search input query of the visual, non-text object and
the text derived from the image or the input speech using at least
one processing device; and
retrieving at least one search result obtained with the
mixed combination search input query.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Paolini (US 2008/0306924 Al;
Dec. 11, 2008). Final Act. 3—5.
Claims 29-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
anticipated by Paolini and Phillips (US 2006/0085477 Al; Apr. 20, 2006).
Final Act. 5—6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
2
Appeal 2016-001450
Application 13/390,526
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded the
Examiner erred; we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our
own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claim 1 recites “combining the visual, non-text object from the image
and text derived from the image or input speech to obtain a mixed
combination search input query,” and “searching at least one document
using the mixed combination search input query.” Appellant argues the
Examiner erred in finding Paolini anticipates independent claim 1, because
“Paolini does not disclose searching with a mixed type combination query of
the invention, as all input is converted to text in Paolini.” App. Br. 6.
During prosecution, we give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Appellant’s Specification describes
the computer will “extract the query terms” from search inputs—such as
images or audio—when performing a search. Spec. 9:7—8. With respect to
the claimed “combining ... to obtain a mixed combination search input
query,” the Specification discusses a mix of inputs only twice:
these input methods can be used in a mix', the user can for
example write “how to” and take an image of the box on the ship
and the written words “how to” and the pattern recognised
words “ship ” and “box” are combined to form the search query
in accordance with the invention. Likewise speech and text and
image and speech, or in fact all three forms of input, can be used
in a mix in accordance with the invention.
3
Appeal 2016-001450
Application 13/390,526
Spec. 9:18—22 (emphases added). In light of the Specification, we find
claim 1 encompasses converting the various inputs to text. See, e.g., Spec.
28:20-25 (“image and speech data can be also recognised in combination . .
. . In the aforementioned ways, and other ways, audiovisual data can be
distilled into text.”); 30:32—31:1 (“He just took a picture from the harbour.
The pattern recognition will recognise words “sea” and “ship” from the
image.”).
Thus, Appellant’s argument that Paolini discloses “all images are
converted to text.... [such that] ONLY TEXT enters the query” (Reply Br.
2) does not persuade us the Examiner erred. Rather, we agree the claimed
limitation “combining ... to obtain a mixed combination search input
query” is reasonably shown by Paolini’s combined query inputs including
“textual information generated from the image,” which is consistent with
Appellant’s Specification. Paolini 149; see also Final Act. 3^4; Paolini Fig.
5; 134 (“query formats include . . . some combination of visual, audio and
textual formats.”).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues “Paolini et. al. does NOT
disclose . . . the identification of a visual non-text object from the image.”
Reply Br. 3. Appellant provides no showing of good cause to explain why
this argument was not raised in the opening brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010)
(informative opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not
required to address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that could
have been presented in the principal brief on appeal). Therefore, Appellant
has waived this argument. Nonetheless, we note the Specification does not
discuss the claim term “visual non-text object,” and Appellant does not
4
Appeal 2016-001450
Application 13/390,526
provide evidence or reasoning to persuade us the Examiner erred in finding
such object is shown by Paolini’s input images of wine bottle labels and city
signs (which will include both text and non-text objects). See Final Act. 3;
Paolini || 34, 44-49. Additionally, Paolini states the query input can
include an “image of a box or plate of food,” which we find discloses the
claimed visual non-text object. Paolini | 53.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Paolini discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 15, 18, 23, 25, 27, and 29-
32, not separately argued. See App. Br. 6—7, 12.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 15, 18, 23, 25, 27,
and 29—32 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5