Ex Parte Gelfand et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

11858356 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111858,356 0912012007
10949 7590 08/30/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Natasha Gelfand
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.
042933/333289 2610
EXAMINER
MITIKU, BERHANU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteNATASHA GELFAND, WEI-CHAO CHEN,
RADEK GRZESZCZUK, and YINGEN XIONG
Appeal2014-009499
Application 11/858,356
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-24. Claims 2, 10, 17, and 25 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a method,
apparatus and computer program product for providing a visual search
Appeal2014-009499
Application 11/858,356
interface (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving indications of an image including an object;
receiving location information indicative of a location
associated with a device providing the indications of the
image;
enabling performance of a visual search based on the
location information and features of the image to identify
candidate search results by comparing the image to source
images stored in association with a geographic location
within a predetermined distance from the location associated
with the device;
receiving an input from a user making an association
between a particular point of interest and the image m
response to the identified candidate search results; and
in response to receiving the input, causing an update to a
database based on the association.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Darrell
Lee
US 2005/0162523 Al
US 2008/0147730 Al
REJECTION
July 28, 2005
June 19, 2008
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee and Darrell (Final Act. 5-18).
2
Appeal2014-009499
Application 11/858,356
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
ISSUES
35U.S.C.§103(a): Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-24
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Lee and Darrell
(App. Br. 5-10). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Lee and Darrell
teaches or suggests:
enabling performance of a visual search based on the location
information and features of the image to identify candidate
search results by comparing the image to source images stored in
association with a geographic location within a predetermined
distance from the location associated with the device;
receiving an input from a user making an association between a
particular point of interest and the image in response to the
identified candidate search results; and
in response to receiving the input, causing an update to a database
based on the association,
as recited in independent claim 1 and as commensurately recited in
independent claims 9, 16, and 24?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and adopt as our own:
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
3
Appeal2014-009499
Application 11/858,356
which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims
argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants first argue Lee fails to teach or suggest the recited
"enabling" and "receiving" steps as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 6).
More specifically, Darrell, according to Appellants, does not teach or
suggest location-based searching and further, the locations of the object and
the photo taking device are not part of Darrell's image-based search (id. at
8-9). Moreover, Appellants argue, Darrell's "location" does not "imply use
of the user's current location"; rather Darrell teaches against using
geographic location to determine candidate results (id. at 9).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Darrell teaches "enabling performance of a visual search"
(Final Act. 6; Ans. 4). Specifically, Darrell describes a user can take a photo
and send it wirelessly, as a query and that "an image-based [search] (as
opposed to keyword-based) URL index is constructed to allow searching"
(Darrell i-f 25; see Ans. 5; see also Darrell i-fi-136-37 describing image
matching algorithms). Thus, we are not persuaded the combination of
Darrell and Lee fails to teach "enabling performance of a visual search."
Appellants additionally argue Darrell fails to teach "location-based
searching ... e.g., performing the search based on 'location information' for
an image that is associated with 'a geographic location within a pre-
determined distance from the location of the device" (App. Br. 8). We find
Darrell teaches "an image is used to find matching images of the same
location" (Darrell i-f 24; see also id. i-f 28). Furthermore, we find, in contrast
4
Appeal2014-009499
Application 11/858,356
to Appellants' assertion (App. Br. 9), Darrell teaches using the current
geographic location of the photograph as part of the search (Darrell i-fi-19, 22;
Ans. 5; Final Act. 6-7). Specifically, Darrell teaches a global positioning
system receiver identifies the geographic location of the mobile device
which can be used to eliminate images not located in the geographical
location of the mobile device (Darrell i-fi-19, 22; see also Darrell, claim 15).
Thus, we are not persuaded Darrell fails to teach or suggest "enabling
performance of a visual search based on the location information and
features of the image." We further find Darrell teaches identifying candidate
search results" as recited (Ans. 5; Final Act. 6). Darrell describes a user
taking a picture of a building to determine if the building is a specific
building known as "Killian Court" (Darrell i127). The image is then sent to
the server where a visual search is conducted to find pages that also contain
images of the building (id.). Darrell discloses the geographic location of the
mobile device can be used to eliminate images not geographically relevant
(id. at i-fi-1 9, 22, claim 15).
It follows, in light of Darrell's disclosure, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments that Darrell teaches against using geographic location
of the user to determine candidate results (App. Br. 9). Indeed, we are not
persuaded that because Darrell teaches using geographic location to
eliminate non-useful images, the additional keyword search would be
unnecessary, as Appellants argue (id.). Rather, the keyword search may help
to narrow down the candidate list even further. Moreover, although
Appellants argue Darrell's selecting keywords would not be necessary, we
determine Darrell teaches a set of keywords may be used as a further filter
for the search results (id. i138). Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us
5
Appeal2014-009499
Application 11/858,356
Darrell criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages modifying the
reference to arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the combination of Darrell and Lee fails to teach or suggest the
recited enabling step.
With respect to the "receiving an input," Appellants do not present
any specific arguments or evidence to show error in the Examiner's findings
(see App. Br. 9). Specifically, although Appellants contend Darrell does not
disclose "receiving an input from a user making an association between a
particular point of interest and the image in response to the identified
candidate search results" (App. Br. 8), Appellants' conclusory assertion is
not supported by persuasive arguments or evidence that shows error in the
Examiner's findings (Final Act. 6-7). Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the combination of Darrell and Lee fails to teach or suggest the recited
"receiving an input" step.
Appellants further contend Lee does not teach or suggest updating a
database according to an association (App. Br. 7). According to Appellants,
Lee discloses updating records if the location of the user changes; however,
this updating of new information fails to teach or suggest updating a
database based on a user-created association between a point of interest and
an image to perform future visual searches (id.). Thus, Appellants argue,
because Lee teaches updating based on a location change, Lee does not teach
updating based on the user-created association (id.). Appellants additionally
argue Darrell does not teach or suggest updating (id. at 9).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We note the claim
broadly recites causing an update "based on" the association. We agree with
the Examiner that Lee teaches updating a database in the claimed manner
6
Appeal2014-009499
Application 11/858,356
(Final Act. 6; Ans. 5). Lee teaches that records may be updated if the
location or other information of a user changes, and that the mobility
manager can keep a log (database) of who leaves or enters the building or is
within a proximity of the building (Lee i-f 56; Final Act. 6). Lee further
teaches the mobile device can send a taken picture to the image server (Lee
i-f 4 7; Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner that this sending of the picture to
the image server is causing an update to a database in response (i.e., based
on) to user input.
Appellants' arguments attacking Lee individually are also
unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Darrell, not Lee, as teaching
the recited association (Final Act. 6-7). As discussed above, the Examiner
correctly relies on Lee to teach or suggest causing an update to a database, in
response to receiving input from the user (Final Act. 5---6). Appellants have
not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us an ordinarily
skilled artisan, upon reading Lee, would not have found it obvious to update
a database based on information, such as an association as taught by Darrell.
Moreover, Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us causing an update to a database based on one data (association)
instead of different data, would have been uniquely challenging or beyond
the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Therefore, Appellants' arguments
are unpersuasive.
Appellants additionally argue Lee fails to contemplate updating a
database for performance of a future visual search (App. Br. 8); however, we
note Appellants' argument regarding performance of "future visual
searches" is directed to limitations not recited in the claim. Indeed, claim 1
7
Appeal2014-009499
Application 11/858,356
merely recites "causing an update to a database based on the association"
(emphasis added).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Lee and Darrell teaches or suggests the limitations as recited
in claim 1. The remaining claims were not argued separately, instead,
relying on the arguments set forth with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 10).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Lee and Darrell.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee and Darrell 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.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8