Ex Parte Jung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2013

11591435 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2013)

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