Ex Parte Jung et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 201311591435 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/591,435 10/31/2006 Edward K.Y. Jung SE1-0482-US 7064 80118 7590 04/26/2013 Constellation Law Group, PLLC P.O. Box 220 Tracyton, WA 98393 EXAMINER SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte EDWARD K.Y. JUNG, ROYCE A. LEVIEN, ROBERT W. LORD, MARK A. MALAMUD, and JOHN D. RINALDO JR. ____________________ Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,4351 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Application filed October 31, 2006. The real party in interest is Searete, LLC. (App. Br. 7.) Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 37-92. Claims 1-36 were canceled. (App. Br. 9.)2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns image selection and rights management, specifically, an image access system, image selection method and related computer-readable storage medium for associating rights-related information with component elements of captured images and enabling compliance with the rights-related information. (Spec., 4:27-5:21; Abstract.) Representative Claim Independent claim 37, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, further illustrates the invention: 37. A method of selectivity for a composite visual work comprising: identifying a collection of captured images; associating rights-related information with one or more component elements of the captured images; presenting a representation of one or more of the captured images to be accessible for viewing by a user; and enabling compliance with the rights-related information in connection with a selection of a specified component element 2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed January 26, 2011; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 29, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 2, 2011. Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 3 of the captured images as a possible component element for future incorporation in a composite work. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 37-39, 41, 44-51, 53-62, and 64-92 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0131002 A1, published Jul. 10, 2003 (“Gennetten”). 2. The Examiner rejects claims 40, 42, 43, 52, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gennetten and Official Notice. ISSUES Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues before us follow: 1. Does the Examiner err in finding that Gennetten discloses “associating rights-related information with one or more component elements of the captured images” and “enabling compliance with the rights-related information in connection with a selection of a specified component element of the captured images as a possible component element for future incorporation in a composite work” (claim 37) within the meaning of independent claim 37 and the commensurate limitations of claims 45 and 50? 2. Does the Examiner properly combine Gennetten and the Examiner’s Official Notice with respect to claim 40? Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 4 FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office Action mailed April 26, 2010 as our own. ANALYSIS Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 24-280), we select independent claim 37 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and groupings with respect to claims 37-92. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The § 102 Rejection of Claims 37, 45, and 50 Appellants contend that the Examiner has not produced a prima facie anticipation case (App. Br. 49-51) and Gennetten does not “teach” or disclose the recitations of claim 37 (App. Br. 51-62). (See Reply Br. 3-12). Specifically, Appellants contend that: the Gennetten reference does not recite “associating rights- related information with one or more component elements of the captured images” and “enabling compliance with the rights-related information in connection with a selection of a specified component element of the captured images as a possible component element for future incorporation in a composite work” as recited in Appellant’s Independent Claim 37. (App. Br. 52.) The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of the anticipation rejection in the Examiner’s Answer with respect to each of the claims so rejected (Ans. 3-13, 16-23) and, in particular, the rejection of claims 37, 45, and 50 (Ans. 3-4, 10, 16-19). Specifically, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation with respect to Gennetten’s disclosure of an image 14 which is Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 5 assigned identifiers after capture, maintaining a record containing access information relating to the image, and a record including rights-related information associated with the captured image. (Ans. 3-4, 17-18 (citing Gennetten, ¶¶ [0011], [0012], [0016], [0052], [0053])). The Examiner, therefore, finds that Gennetten discloses the disputed features – “associating rights-related information with one or more component elements of the captured images” and “enabling compliance with the rights-related information in connection with a selection of a specified component element of the captured images as a possible component element for future incorporation in a composite work” (claim 37). (Id.) We adopt these findings and this reasoning as our own. Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s finding that Gennetten discloses associating rights-related information (e.g., a username and password) with one or more component elements of the captured images (a captured image which necessarily includes one or more component elements) and enabling compliance with the rights-related information (e.g., entering a username and password) in connection with a selection of a specified component element of the captured images (the captured image). We also agree with the Examiner’s ultimate finding that Gennetten discloses the disputed features of claim 37. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 for the reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein by reference. (Ans. 3-13, 16-23.) We limit our additional analysis to the following points of emphasis. Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 6 We initially note that the argued portions of the disputed limitations – “associating rights-related information with one or more component elements of the captured images” and “enabling compliance with the rights- related information in connection with a selection of a specified component element of the captured images as a possible component element for future incorporation in a composite work” (claim 37) – consist of statements of intended use and non-functional descriptive material that do not limit the recited “associating” and “enabling” steps (or the recited “system” of claim 50) structurally or functionally. Specifically, the statements of intend use – “in connection with a selection of a specified component element of the captured images” and that a component of the captured image may be utilized in a composite work (“a possible component element for future incorporation in a composite work”) – in this instance do not further limit the scope of the claim. See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (a statement of intended use “usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates”). Further, the recited “one or more component elements” (portions of a captured image, i.e., data) and “a specified component element” (again, a portion of a captured image, i.e., data) are essentially non-functional descriptive material in that these limitations simply require some data stored in memory (a portion of a captured image) and merely recite what the information or data represents (the name or label for the data). The functionality of the “associating” and “enabling” steps (and the structure and functionality of the recited “system” of claim 50) remain the same regardless of what the data constitutes or how the data may be named. The Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 7 informational content of the data thus represents non-functional descriptive material, which “does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.” Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003), aff’d, (Rule 36) (June 12, 2006) (“wellness-related” data in databases and communicated on distributed network did not functionally change either the data storage system or the communication system used in the claimed method). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Nehls, 88 USPQ2d at 1887-90 (discussing non-functional descriptive material). Even if we arguendo ascribe some patentable weight to the limitations, as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 17-18), Gennetten discloses captured images (14) which are assigned identifiers (22) after capture, maintaining a record containing access information relating to the image, and a record including rights-related information associated with the captured image (see Gennetten, ¶¶ [0011], [0012], [0016], [0052], [0053]; Fig. 1). Contrary to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 49-62; Reply Br. 3- 12), we find (as did the Examiner) that Gennetten discloses the disputed features of claim 37 and constitutes objective evidence upon which the Examiner properly relied to demonstrate that Gennetten anticipates Appellants’ claim. We note that Appellants expand their arguments concerning the Examiner’s lack of a prima facie case in the Reply Brief. (Reply Br. 3-12.) We conclude that the Examiner has made out a proper prima facie case of anticipation. As explained by our reviewing court: Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 8 The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) satisfies its initial burden of production by “adequately explain[ing] the shortcomings it perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond.” Hyatt [v. Dudas], 492 F.3d [1365,] 1370 [(Fed. Cir. 2007)]. In other words, the PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in “notify[ing] the applicant ... [by] stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35 U.S.C. § 132. That section “is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1990). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed.Cir. 2011). Here, the Examiner adequately explained the basis for the rejection so as to provide notice to Appellants, the rejection was not “‘so uninformative [as to prevent Appellants] from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.’” Id. Appellants provide separate arguments for independent claim 45 (App. Br. 183-196) and independent claim 50 (App. Br. 210-223), but these arguments are essentially identical to the arguments made with respect to claim 37. Thus, for all the reasons set forth above, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative independent claim 37 and independent claims 45 and 50. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 37 as well as independent claims 45 and 50, which include limitations of commensurate scope and dependent claims 38, 39, 44, 46-49, 51, 53, 54, 56-59, 61, 62, 64-72, 75, 77-79, 81-89, 91, and Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 9 92, which depend on their respective base claims and were not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 63, 196-197, and 223-224). The § 102 Rejection of Claim 41 Appellants provide nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 41 (App. Br. 79-93). Appellants’ arguments essentially reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 37, supra. We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 37. Additionally, Appellants do not address why the disclosure of Gennetten cited by the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 10, 16-19 (citing Gennetten, ¶ [0053])) does not anticipate the recited feature of claim 41 – “providing user accessibility to the rights-related information in connection with the selection of the specified component element as the possible component element for future incorporation in the composite work.” Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 41. The § 102 Rejection of Claims 73 and 74 Appellants make nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 73 (App. Br. 124-138) and dependent claim 74 (App. Br. 138-153. Appellants’ arguments essentially reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 37, supra. We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 37. Additionally, Appellants do not explain why the disclosures of Gennetten cited by the Examiner (Ans. 3-6, 11, 16-21 (citing Gennetten, ¶¶ [0049], [0059]); Ans. 3-7, 11, 16-21 (citing Gennetten, ¶¶ [0033], [0042], [0059])) do not anticipate the recited features of claim 73 – “enabling access and retrieval of the specified component element for incorporation in a composite still image frame” – and claim 74 – “enabling access and retrieval of the specified component element for incorporation in Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 10 a composite video image frame.” Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 73 and 74. The § 102 Rejection of Claim 76 Appellants submit additional nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 76 (App. Br. 154-168). Appellants’ arguments essentially reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 37, supra. We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 37. Also, Appellants do not address why the disclosure of Gennetten cited by the Examiner (Ans. 3-5, 11, 16-21 (citing Gennetten, ¶¶ [0033], [0042], [0059])) does not anticipate the recited features of claim 76 – “retaining a stored version of the one or more captured images for future reference; and providing a cross-reference association between stored versions that include multiple exposures having different quality characteristics of related visual objects” – beyond contending that the cited disclosure is “very different’ on its face (App. Br. 166). We find, as did the Examiner (Ans. 3-5, 11, 16-21) that Gennetten discloses storing (retaining) captured images (Gennetten, ¶ [0042]) and providing a cross-reference association (i.e., data (non- functional descriptive material)) between stored images (i.e., data (non- functional descriptive material) – “stored versions that include multiple exposures having different quality characteristics of related visual objects”) (Gennetten, ¶¶ [0033], [0059]). Gennetten discloses assigning identifiers (data) to images (which may be “stored versions that include multiple exposures having different quality characteristics”) (Gennetten, ¶ [0033]). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 76. Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 11 The § 102 Rejection of Claims 80 and 90 Similar to claim 76, Appellants submit nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 80 (App. Br. 169-182). Appellants’ arguments essentially reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 37, supra. We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 37. Also, Appellants do not address why the disclosure of Gennetten cited by the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 8, 12, 16-22 (citing Gennetten, ¶ [0053])) does not anticipate the recited features of claim 80 – “associating one or more of the following different quality characteristics with the one or more component elements of the captured images: privacy right, proprietary right, restricted usage right, distribution right, ownership transfer, and license right” – beyond contending that the cited disclosure is “very different’ on its face (App. Br. 180). We find, as did the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 8, 12, 16-22), that Gennetten discloses password protecting images (Ans. 22; Gennetten, ¶ [0053]), which we construe as “associating . . . different quality characteristics” (i.e., rights-related information) “with . . . the captured images,” in particular, a “restricted usage right.” Claim 90 includes limitations commensurate to those of claim 80. Appellants present arguments essentially identical to claim 80. (App. Br. 197- 210.) Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 80 and 90. The § 102 Rejection of Claim 55 Appellants provide nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 55 (App. Br. 239-252). Appellants’ arguments essentially reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 37, supra. We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 37. Further, Appellants Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 12 do not address why the disclosure of Gennetten cited by the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 6, 16-22 (citing Gennetten, ¶ [0043])) does not anticipate the recited features of claim 55 – “an alteration module for creating a modified version of the possible visual component available for incorporation in the composite work” – beyond contending that the cited disclosure is “very different’ on its face (App. Br. 250). We find, as did the Examiner (Ans. 3- 4, 6, 16-22), that Gennetten discloses displaying captured images as thumbnail images (Ans. 22; Gennetten, ¶ [0043]), which “are modified versions of [the] original images” (Ans. 22). Thus, we find Gennetten discloses modifying images utilizing some hardware or software (i.e., a module). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 55. The § 102 Rejection of Claim 60 Appellants provide nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 60 (App. Br. 252-266). Appellants’ arguments essentially reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 37, supra. We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 37. Additionally, Appellants do not address why the disclosure of Gennetten cited by the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 7, 16-23 (citing Gennetten, ¶¶ [0033], [0042], [0059])) does not anticipate the recited features of claim 60, beyond contending that the cited disclosure is “very different’ on its face (App. Br. 264). As with claim 37 (supra), the argued portions of the disputed limitations – “storage media for retaining a stored version of the one or more captured images for future reference, wherein the stored version includes multiple video exposures of related visual objects” – consist of non- functional descriptive material that does not limit the recited “storage Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 13 media” structurally or functionally. The storage media’s structure and operation remains the same regardless of the data (the stored version which includes multiple video exposures of related visual objects) stored therein. We find, as did the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 6, 16-22), that Gennetten discloses storing data and, in particular, captured images. (Ans. 7-8; Gennetten, ¶¶ [0033], [0042]). Thus, we find Gennetten discloses the disputed limitations of claim 60, and we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of the claim. The § 103 Rejection of Claims 403and 52 Appellants contend that the Examiner has not produced a prima facie obviousness case (App. Br. 64-66), Gennetten does not teach the recitations of claim 40 (App. Br. 67-77) and claim 52 (App. Br. 224-239), and the Examiner has improperly combined Gennetten with Official Notice to demonstrate obviousness (App. Br. 62-63, 77-79, 238-239). The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of the obviousness rejection in the Examiner’s Answer with respect to each of the claims so rejected (Ans. 3-4, 11, 13-15, 19, 20, 22, 23) and, in particular, the rejection of claims 40 and 52 (Ans. 11, 13-15, 19, 20). Specifically, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation with respect to the Examiner’s Official Notice concerning cross-references associated with multiple images and provides Snapfish (Snapfish (2005), available at (http://web.archive.org/ 3 The Examiner omits claim 40 (as well as claim 42 and 43) from the statement of rejection (Ans. 13), but we deem this as harmless error in that the Examiner’s rejection remains essentially the same as in the Final Office Action, mailed April 26, 2010, at 5-6 and in view of Appellants’ non- specific response (Reply Br. 3-12). Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 14 web/20050403221640/www.snapfish.com/privacy/t =0), to support the official notice. (Ans. 13-14, 19-20.) As explained by the Examiner, it is notoriously well known to associate the same rights with multiple images. (Ans. 13-14.) Further, the Examiner provides a rationale for the combination – “allowing public or private access to a user’s image collection at the user’s discretion.” (Ans. 13-14.) We adopt these findings and this reasoning as our own. Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s finding that Gennetten and Official Notice describe cross-references associated with multiple images, as well as the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that Gennetten and Official Notice would have taught or at least suggested the disputed features of claim 40 and 52. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 40 and 52 for the reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein by reference. (Ans. 3-4, 11, 13-15, 19, 20, 22, 23.) We limit our additional analysis to the following points of emphasis. Appellants’ arguments essentially reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 37, supra. We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claims 37. To the extent Appellants assert that the additional features of claim 40 – “providing a cross-reference between the rights- related information and its associated component element of the captured images” – are not taught by Gennetten and Official Notice (see App. Br. 75- 77), we disagree for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 76 (supra). As with claim 76 (supra), the argued portion of the disputed limitation – “providing a cross-reference” – consists of non-functional descriptive Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 15 material that does not limit the recited “providing” step (or the corresponding system of claim 52) structurally or functionally. The “cross-reference” is merely data. The “providing” step’s functionality (and the system’s structure and operation) remains the same regardless of the data provided. Further, as submitted by the Examiner, such cross-referencing was well known. Appellants do not present any arguments rebutting the Examiner’s Official Notice. With respect to Appellants’ combinability arguments (App. Br. 62-63, 77-79, 238-239), we find that the Examiner has provided a rationale for combining the references (supra) – “allowing public or private access to a user’s image collection at the user’s discretion” (Ans. 13-14), i.e., improved functionality and ease of use. Therefore, the Examiner has stated “some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) Appellants have not shown error therein. We further conclude that it would have been well within the skill of one skilled in the art to combine such known techniques to provide remote (public) access, as taught by the Examiner’s Official Notice and Snapfish, i.e., to allow multiple user’s (public and private) to view multiple images utilizing multiple cross-referenced associated rights. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill” (citations omitted)). Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 16 Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 40 or 52. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 40 and 52. The § 103 Rejection of Claim 42 Appellants also submit nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 42 (App. Br. 93-108). Appellants’ arguments essentially reiterate the arguments made with respect to claims 37 and 40, supra. We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claims 37 and 40. Also, Appellants do not address why the disclosure of Gennetten combined with Official Notice, as cited by the Examiner (Ans. 15-20), does not render the recited features of claim 42 – “incorporating in the composite work the specified component element of the captured images which is confirmed as the selection” – obvious beyond contending that the cited disclosure is “very different’ on its face (App. Br. 104). We conclude, for the reasons cited by the Examiner (Ans. 15-20) that the combination of Gennetten and Official Notice would have at least suggested incorporating a portion of a captured image in a composite image. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 42, and we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the claim. The § 103 Rejection of Claim 43 Appellants further submit nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 43 (App. Br. 108-123). Appellants’ arguments essentially reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 42 (and claims 37 and 40), supra. We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 42. Additionally, Appellants do not address why the disclosure of Gennetten Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 17 combined with Official Notice, as cited by the Examiner (Ans. 15-20), does not render the recited features of claim 43 – “making a record that identifies the rights-related information associated with the selected specified component element, which record is operatively coupled with the composite work that incorporates the selection” – obvious beyond contending that the cited disclosure is “very different’ on its face (App. Br. 120). We conclude, for the reasons cited by the Examiner (Ans. 15-20), that the combination of Gennetten and Official Notice would have at least suggested creating a right- related record associated with a captured image (or a portion thereof) and a composite image including the captured image. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 43, and we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the claim. The § 103 Rejection of Claim 63 Appellants also submit nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 63 (App. Br. 266-280). Appellants’ arguments essentially reiterate the arguments made with respect to claims 40 and 52, supra. We disagree for the same reasons set forth with respect to claims 40 and 52. As with claim 52, Appellants do not address why the disclosure of Gennetten cited by the Examiner in combination with Official Notice (Ans. 13-15, 19- 23) does not render the recited features of claim 63 – “said data record and/or said further data record include a cross-reference between the rights-related information and its associated captured image” – obvious beyond contending that the cited disclosure is “very different’ on its face (App. Br. 277). Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 63, and we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the claim. Appeal 2011-010871 Application 11/591,435 18 CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 37-39, 41, 44-51, 53-62, and 64-92 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 40, 42, 43, 52, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 37-39, 41, 44-51, 53- 62, and 64-92 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 40, 42, 43, 52, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation