Ex Parte Baldwin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 14, 2017

13668034 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 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. 13/668,034 11/02/2012 Robert Michael Baldwin 079894.1624 6857 91230 7590 03/16/2017 Raker Rntts; T T P /Faeehnnk Tne EXAMINER 2001 ROSS AVENUE ZONG, RUOLEI SUITE 700 Dallas, TX 75201 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2441 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2017 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): ptomaill @bakerbotts.com ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT MICHAEL BALDWIN, PAUL FRANCIOS CARDUNER, ANDREW CHUNG, and DIRK JOHN STOOP Appeal 2017-000335 Application 13/668,034 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10 and 12—20, all the pending claims in the present application. Claim 11 is canceled. See Claim Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to techniques for sharing images in a social networking system. See Abstract. Appeal 2017-000335 Application 13/668,034 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A computer implement method comprising: receiving, by a computer system, an image from a first user; associating, by the computer system, the image with a first online archive of the first user within a social networking system; receiving, by the computer system, a request from a second user to associate the image with a second online archive of the second user within the social networking system; and in response to the request from the second user, associating, by the computer system, the image with the second online archive of the second user within the social networking system, thereby providing the second user with persistent access to the image, without receiving a request from the second user to download the image. Appellants appeal the following rejections: Rl. Claim 1—10, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin (US 8,688,782 Bl, Apr. 1, 2014) and Sunflowerl6, How can I re-share my friend’s Facebook photos, 3/6/2011, Ask MetaFilter, ask.metafilter.com/180145/Ho w-can-I-reshare-my-friends- Facebook-photos (Hereinafter Sunflower). R2. Claims 12—15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin, Sunflower, and Bennett (US 2011/0320560 Al, Dec. 29, 2011). ANALYSIS Claims 1—10 and 12—20 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined cited art, particularly Sunflower, teach or suggest associating the image with the second online archive of the second user, as set forth in claim 1? 2 Appeal 2017-000335 Application 13/668,034 Appellants contend that “Sunflower includes questions and responses posted on the website ask.metafilter.com. . . . The Examiner therefore alleges that it be obvious to modify Lin to include the use of reposting as disclosed by Sunflower’'’ (App. Br. 7), but “it is not possible to do what Sunflowerl6 suggests” (id. ) because “Sunflower merely shows that there was a long felt need” (id. at 8). The Examiner finds that Sunflower “equals to [the] claimed ‘second user’, Sunflower’s wall/account equals to claimed ‘second online archive’, and Sunflower’s friend who posted a photo album equals to claimed first user” (Ans. 12). We agree with the Examiner. In essence, Appellants aforementioned contention implies that Sunflower merely highlights a “long felt need” to be able to associate an image from a first user (on a first online archive) with a second online archive of a second user, but Sunflower fails to provide a solution for achieving the same. In response, the Examiner points out that Sunflower discloses using a “Post Album to Profile” link which enabled Sunflower to post his friend’s album to his wall (Sunflower’s wall) via the link (id.). Even if the link in Sunflower only provided access to the friend’s image for “mutual friends,” instead of all of Sunflower’s friends (see Sunflower, page 1), the Examiner concluded, and we agree, that the claimed associating the image with the second online archive of the second user. . . thereby providing the second user with persistent access (see claim 1) reads on Sunflower’s usage of the “Post Album to Profile” link which enables Sunflower (and mutual friends) persistent access to the friend’s image, i.e., associating the image with the second online archive. We further add that the claimed associating the image does not require that Sunflower creates 3 Appeal 2017-000335 Application 13/668,034 his or her own copy, as proffered by Appellants (see Reply Br. 4), it merely refers to some type of connection between the image and the second online archive and Sunflower’s “Post Album to Profile” link provides this connection. Thus, we find unavailing Appellants’ contention that Sunflower merely highlights a “long felt need” given Sunflower’s disclosure of the “Post Album to Profile” link which clearly allows the second user, within the social networking system, to see the post persistently. We further note that it makes no difference that Sunflower’s additional friends (i.e., non mutual friend) cannot access the image (i.e., the actual long felt need here) because the claims only requires providing the second user with persistent access . . . without receiving a request from the second user to download the image, not all of the second user’s friends. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 19 and 20 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. See App. Br. 6—9. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—10 and 12-20. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections R1 and R2. 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 4