Ex Parte Basson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2016

12329466 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/329,466 12/05/2008 Sara H. Basson
30449 7590 04/13/2016
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
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.
END9200804lOUS1 8837
EXAMINER
COLEMAN, STEPHEN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2016 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):
30449@IPLA WUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SARAH. BASSON, DIMITRI KANEVSKY,
EDWARD E. KELLEY, and IRINA RISH
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, 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 1-8, 10, 12, 13, and 17-27. 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Claims 9, 11, and 14--16 were previously cancelled.
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
INVENTION
The invention is directed to transmitting and accessing metadata of
video and photographic images at the time of capture. (Spec. i-fi-f l, 4, and 6.)
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. An electronic photographic device transmits an
authorization signal at a time of capture of a photographic image
that enables a user in receipt of the signal to authorize use of a
likeness in the captured photographic image, the electronic
photographic device comprising:
image capture means for capturing the photographic image
at a physical location, said photographic image comprising a
likeness of a person located at the physical location, said image
capture means being a camera;
a controller for generating the authorization signal at the
capture of the photographic image by the image capture means,
the authorization signal identifying a website URL at which the
captured photographic image and information relating to the
photographic image can be accessed; and
a transmitter for transmitting the authorization signal
generated by the controller towards the physical location at
which the photographic image comprising the likeness of the
person is captured and at which the person is located.
REFERENCES
Shull us 6,006,077 Dec. 21, 1999
Simske US 2004/0174443 Al Sep.9,2004
Pohja US 2005/0096084 Al May 5, 2005
Zuckerberg US 2008/0091723 A 1 Apr. 17, 2008
Nakamura US 2009/0136221 Al May 28, 2009
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
unpatentable over Pohja. (Final Act. 4.)
2
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Pohja and Simske. (Final Act. 6.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Pohja and Shull. (Final Act. 7.)
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Pohja and Nakamura. (Final Act. 8.)
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Pohja, Nakamura, and Zuckerberg.
(Final Act. 10.)
Claims 13, 18, 20-22, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Pohja, Zuckerberg, and Nakamura.
(Final Act. 11.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Pohja, Nakamura, and Simske. (Final Act. 15.)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Pohja, Zuckerberg, Nakamura, and Simske. (Final Act.
16.)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Pohja, Zuckerberg, Nakamura, and Shull. (Final Act.
16.)
ISSUES
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue on pages 9-13 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2--4 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error. The issues presented by these arguments are:
3
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Pohja discloses "the
authorization signal identifying a website URL at which the
captured photographic image ... can be accessed"?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Pohja discloses "a transmitter
for transmitting the authorization signal generated by the controller
towards the physical location at which the photographic image
comprising the likeness of the person is captured and at which the
person is located"?
Dependent claims 5 and 18
Appellants argue on pages 13, 14, 31, and 32 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 5, 6, 23, and 24 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 5 and 18 are in error. The issues presented by these
arguments are:
3) Did the Examiner err in finding that Pohja discloses/teaches
"wherein the transmitter transmits the authorization signal via a
narrowband, low power carrier in a range limited to a physical
location at which the photographic image is captured"?
Dependent claims 6 and 19
Appellants argue on pages 16, 17, 40, and 41 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 8, 9, 32, and 33 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 6 and 19 are in error. The issues presented by these
arguments are:
4) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pohja and
Shull teaches or suggests "The electronic photographic device ...
4
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
further comprising broadcast adjusting means to control at least
one parameter selected from a height, width, radius, and transmit
angle of the authorization signal transmitted"?
Independent claims 8 and 13
Appellants argue on pages 18-22 and 27-31 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 10-14 and 19-23 of the Reply Briefthat the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 8 and 13 are in error. The issues presented by these
arguments are the same as presented above with respect to claim 1 with the
additional issue:
5) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pohja
and Nakamura teaches or suggests:
after the directionally transmitted authorization signal has been
transmitted to and received by the person at the physical location
and after the photographic image at the website has been
accessed by the person, receiving from the person at the physical
location an authorization or a denial of usage of the photographic
image?
Dependent claim 21
Appellants argue on pages 18-22 and 27-31 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 10-14 and 19-23 of the Reply Briefthat the Examiner's rejection of
claim 21 is in error. The issues presented by these arguments are the same
as the fifth issue above.
5
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
Dependent claim 22
Appellants argue on pages 34--35 of the Appeal Brief and pages 25-
26 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 is in error.
The issues presented by these arguments are:
6) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pohja,
Zuckerberg, and Nakamura teaches or suggests "wherein the
interactive display enables the authorized person to input
multimedia data, including text and image data, in association with
the captured photographic image"?
Dependent claims 23
Appellants argue on pages 23-25 of the Appeal Brief and pages 15-
16 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 23
are in error. The issues presented by these arguments are:
7) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pohja,
Nakamura, and Zuckerberg teaches or suggests "associating
information with the captured photographic image, said
information comprising authorization signal content of the
photographic image, a time at which the photographic image was
captured, data about the owner, and geographic data identifying
where the photographic image was captured"?
Dependent claims 24 and 26
Appellants argue on pages 26 and 3 6 of the Appeal Brief and pages
15-16 and 27 of the Reply Briefthat the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 24 and 26 are in error. The issues presented by these arguments are:
6
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
8) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pohja,
Nakamura, and Zuckerberg teaches or suggests masking the
likeness of the person?
Dependent claim 27
Appellants argue on page 37 of the Appeal Brief and pages 28-29 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 27 is in
error. The issues presented by these arguments are:
9) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Pohja,
Nakamura, and Zuckerberg teaches or suggests:
receiving means for receiving from the person at the physical
location an authorization or a denial of usage of the
photographic image, after the directionally transmitted
authorization signal has been transmitted to and received by
the person at the physical location and after the photographic
image at the website has been accessed by the person?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection and the Examiner's response to the Appellants'
arguments. We agree with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 6, 19, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) but disagree with
Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8,
10, 12, 13, and 17, 18, 20-22, and 24--27.
7
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
Independent Claim 1
First Issue
Appellants argue Pohja does not teach the claimed feature of
"transmitting ... an authorization signal identifying a website URL at which
the captured photographic image ... can be accessed." (App. Br. 11; Reply
Br. 4.) Specifically, Appellants argue Pohja paragraph 72 is totally silent as
to the URL being transmitted in step 910. (App. Br. 12.)
The Examiner finds Pohja Figure 9 and paragraphs 10, 53, and 68
disclose that created image content may contain a reference to the created
image data in the form of a URL. (Ans. 15.) Appellants note that Pohja
paragraph 68 teaches that a URL reference to content may be placed in a
container together with the content, but Appellants argue Pohja does not
teach that a URL reference to the digital content created in step 900 may be
included in the signal transmitted in step 910. (Reply Br. 4.) Pohja
paragraph 68 states "the list of relevant identifiers includes a reference to the
content, or both. Such a reference may be, for example, a Uniform Resource
Locator (URL)." (Emphasis added.) Pohja paragraph 72 discloses "[t]he list
of resulting identifiers may then be transmitted 910 to the entities."
(Emphasis added.) Thus the URL reference included in the list of identifiers
is transmitted in step 910. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
element 910 of Pohja Figure 9 discloses transmitting content including a
reference in the form of a URL. (See Ans. 15-16.)
Second Issue
Appellants argue Pohja does not explicitly or inherently teach that the
entities receiving the signal transmitted in step 910 are in the physical
location at which the photographic image of these entities were captured in
8
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
step 900. (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3.) The Examiner finds Pohja Figures
5A-B and paragraphs 57---61 disclose the use of Bluetoothâ„¢ for transmitting
content towards a physical location. (Ans. 16.) We agree with the Examiner
because at least Pohja paragraph 59 discloses "the proximity/location
technology used is Bluetooth" which is directly associated with "the group
of friends 506, 508, 510, 512" depicted in Pohja Figure 5A. Proximity and
location of the Bluetoothâ„¢ is reasonably interpreted as within the scope of
the physical location as recited by claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Dependent Claims 5 and 18
Third Issue
Appellants argue Pohja does not teach the feature: "wherein the
transmitter transmits the authorization signal via a narrowband, low power
carrier in a range limited to a physical location at which the photographic
image is captured." (App. Br. 13, 14, 31, and 32; Reply Br. 5, 6, 23, and
24.) Specifically, Appellants argue the disclosure in Pohja of Bluetoothâ„¢ is
not a disclosure of this limitation. (Id.) The Examiner finds Pohja
paragraph 59 teaches the use of Bluetooth as a proximity/location
technology for applications in the proximity as in Figure 5A. (Ans. 17 and
21.)
We agree with the Examiner because BluetoothTM is expressly cited as
an example in Specification paragraphs 8, 16, 31, and 38. Specification
paragraph 31 states "The authorization signal sent from the camera or
electronic device that includes a camera is a low power, narrow band carrier
signal, such as those known to be used in available peer-to-peer
9
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
communication technologies including without limitation Wi-Fi and
Bluetooth[â„¢]." Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
5.
Dependent Claims 6 and 19
Fourth Issue
Appellants argue Pohja in view of Shull does not teach "broadcast
adjusting means to control at least one parameter selected from a height,
width, radius, and transmit angle of the authorization signal transmitted."
(App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 8.) The Examiner finds Shull column 2 lines
30-60 teach "adjusting [] broadcast strength (i.e. radius)." (Ans. 17 and
21.)
Appellants argue that only a transmitter of a signal, and not the
receiver of the signal, can control such a parameter of the signal. (Reply Br.
8 and 33.) We agree with Appellants because Shull column 2 lines 30-60
does not teach "broadcast strength." Shull column 2 teaches a "signal
strength measurement" and a "compensated signal strength measurement"
but does not teach adjusting a broadcast strength.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6
and 19.
Independent Claims 8 and 13
The issues presented by these arguments are the same as presented
above with respect to claim 1 and the additional issue:
10
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
Fifth Issue
Appellants argue Nakamura does not disclose an authorization or a
denial of usage of an already existing photographic image that has been
accessed at the website. (App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 13-14.)
The Examiner finds Nakamura paragraphs 27 and 67-71 teach this
limitation. (Ans. 19; Final Act. 9.) We agree with the Examiner. Nakamura
paragraph 68 teaches transmitting "permission ... or non-permission of the
photographing." Permission or non-permission is within the scope of an
authorization or denial of usage as recited. Prior to this, Nakamura
paragraph 67 teaches "present[] the photographing information to the
photographee" and Nakamura paragraph 50 teaches "the so-called
photographing information is ... or a preview photographing image." A
preview photographing image of the photographing information is an
already existing photographic image. Therefore the permission/non-
permission section the Examiner cites in Nakamura paragraphs 67-71, (Ans.
19; Final Act. 9), relate to an already existing preview image of the
photographing information. Accordingly, Appellants' we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 8 and 13.
Dependent Claim 21
The issues presented by these arguments are the same as the fifth issue
presented above with respect to claims 8 and 13. Specifically, Appellants
argue Nakamura paragraphs 27 and 67-71 disclose enabling the
photographee to either permit or not permit being photographed, but does
not disclose enabling the photographee to either permit or not permit
11
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
authorization for use of their likeness in a photographic image that exists.
(App. Br. 33; Reply Br. 25.)
The Examiner finds Nakamura paragraphs 27 and 67-71 teach
authorization or denial of usage of a photographic image. (Ans. 21-22.) For
the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claims 8 and 13, the
permission/non-permission section the Examiner cites in Nakamura
paragraphs 67-71, (Ans. 19; Final Act. 9), relate to an already existing
preview image, (Nakamura i-f 50), of the photographing information.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
Dependent Claim 22
Sixth Issue
Appellants argue Pohja in view of Zuckerberg and Nakamura does not
teach "wherein the interactive display enables the authorized person to input
multimedia data, including text and image data, in association with the
captured photographic image." (App. Br. 34--35; Reply Br. 25-26.)
The Examiner finds Nakamura Figure 2 and paragraph 72 teaches
"changing photographing information which is allows [sic] for inputting text
and image data, in association with the captured photographic image." (Ans.
22.) We agree with the Examiner that the "photographing information" and
"acquired photographee information" is within the scope of "text and image
data." Specifically, Nakamura paragraph 59 describes "the [] photographee
information is ... personal information (a name, an age, an address, ... ), ...
a face data, an alternative image." Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 22.
12
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
Dependent Claim 23
Seventh Issue
teach:
Appellants argue Pohja in view ofNakanmra and Zuckerberg does not
associating information with the captured photographic image,
said information comprising authorization signal content of the
photographic image, a time at which the photographic image was
captured, data about the owner, and geographic data identifying
where the photographic image was captured; and downloading
said information to a server that manages the website.
(App. Br. 23-25; Reply Br. 15-16.) Specifically, Appellants argue
Zuckerberg paragraphs 6-8 and 30 do not teach that the contact information
associated with the region comprises authorization signal content of the
region, a time at which the region was captured, and geographic data
identifying where the region was captured. (App. Br. 24.)
The Examiner finds Zuckerberg discloses associating information
with the captured photographic image (Zuckerberg i130), said information
comprising authorization signal content (access privileges, Zuckerberg i-f 30)
of the photographic image, a time (date information, Zuckerberg i-f 30) at
which the photographic image was captured, data about the owner (contact
information, Zuckerberg i-f 6), and geographic data (album location,
Zuckerberg i-f 30) identifying where the photographic image was captured;
downloading said information to a server that manages the website
(Zuckerberg i-f 5).
We agree with the Examiner in part, but disagree in regard to the
album location. Appellants argue the disclosure in Zuckerberg paragraph 30
comprising "album location" is not a disclosure of "geographic data
identifying where the photographic image was captured", since an album is a
13
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
file, (Zuckerberg if 5), into which photos are organized for viewing by other
network users (Zuckerberg if 3). (Reply 16.) We agree with Appellants that
the file location described by the "album location" is not within the scope of
"geographic data" as recited by claim 23.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claim 23.
The above issue is dispositive for claim 23. Accordingly, we do not
consider Appellants further argument regarding motivation to combine
Nakamura. (App. Br. 25.)
Dependent Claims 24 and 26
Eighth Issue
In regard to claim 24, Appellants argue Pohja in view of Nakamura
and Zuckerberg does not teach "wherein said receiving the authorization or
denial of usage comprises receiving the denial of usage, and wherein the
method further comprises: in conjunction with said receiving the denial of
usage, masking the likeness of the person in the captured photographic
image." (App. Br. 26 and 36; Reply Br. 15-16 and 27.) Specifically,
Appellants argue Zuckerberg paragraph 70 doesn't exist. (App. Br. 26;
Reply Br. 23.)
In regard to claims 24 and 26 the Examiner finds Nakamura paragraph
70 teaches the above limitation.2 (Final. Act. 11 and 14.) Nakamura
2 The Examiner's Final Rejection page 11 contains a typographic error
where it states "Zuckerberg's Paragraph 0070 discloses .... It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to
modify Pohja in view of Nakamura's disclosure to .... "(Underline
added). We consider this typographic error to be harmless error because
14
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
paragraph 70 teaches "the position of the photographee of which the
photographing is not permitted may be superposedly displayed ...
displaying the non-permission matter with a gray scale, or the like."
Superposing or gray-scaling the non-permission matter is within the scope of
masking the likeness in conjunction with receiving the denial of usage.
In regard to claim 26, Appellants argue the Examiner has not provided
a reason to modify Pohja in view of Zuckerberg. (App. Br. 36; Reply Br.
28.) We are unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred because Final Action
page 13 provides the following statement on reasons to modify Pohja to
include the teachings of Zuckerberg:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of
the invention to modify Pohja's disclosure to include the
limitations wherein a server for communicating with the
electronic device to receive the captured photographic image and
authorization signal and to present the captured photographic
image and related information to user browsers accessing the
website in order to facilitate proper image cataloging.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 24 and 26.
Dependent Claim 27
Ninth Issue
Appellants argue Pohja in view of Nakamura and Zuckerberg does not
teach:
Zuckerberg paragraph 70 does not exist and the disclosure is explicitly
described as Nakamura's disclosure. Furthermore, with regard to claim 26,
the Examiner cites Nakamura paragraph 70 in regards to a substantially
similar claim limitation. (See Final Act. 14.) Thus Appellants had the
opportunity to fully respond to the Examiner's asserted teachings from
Nakamura paragraph 70 with respect to claim 26.
15
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
receiving means for receiving from the person at the physical
location an authorization or a denial of usage of the photographic
image, after the directionally transmitted authorization signal has
been transmitted to and received by the person at the physical
location and after the photographic image at the website has been
accessed by the person.
(App. Br. 37; Reply Br. 28-29.)
The Examiner finds Pohja Figure 9 and paragraphs 8-10 teach the
transmitted authorization signal. (Ans. 24.) The Examiner further finds
Nakamura paragraphs 27, 67-71, and Figures 1-2 teach receiving the
authorization or denial of usage of the photographic image. (Id.)
Appellants argue Pohja Figure 9 and paragraphs 8-10 do not state
what allegedly occurs after the preceding events and is therefore
meaningless and has no argumentative weight. (Reply Br. 29.) Appellants
appear to be referring to claim 27 reciting "receiving from the person at the
physical location an authorization or a denial of usage of the photographic
image, after the directionally transmitted authorization signal has been
transmitted." (Emphasis added.) However, the claimed chronology is
apparent in Nakamura as cited by the Examiner. (See Ans. 24.)
Specifically, Nakamura teaches:
[0067] ... the photographee receives the photographing
information (step 103) ....
[0068] Next, the photographee transmits the photographee
information, being information relating to permission of the
photographing or non-permission of the photographing.
(Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 27.
16
Appeal2014-008496
Application 12/329,466
Dependent Claim 2--4, 7, 10, 12, 17, 20, and 25
Appellants have not argued any of the other claims 2--4, 7, 10, 12, 17,
20, and 25 with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly,
we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4, 7, 10, 12, 17,
20, and 25.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18,
20-22, and 24--27 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 6, 19, and 23 is reversed.
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
17