Ex Parte Kretz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

11763469 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

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.
11/763,469 06/15/2007 Martin Kretz PS07 0266US1 3685
58342 7590 11/26/2012
WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19TH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
MISLEH, JUSTIN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2012 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 MARTIN KRETZ
____________

Appeal 2011-010352
Application 11/763,469
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010352
Application 11/763,469

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 6-10, and 15-18 (App. Br. 2). Claims 2-5 and 11-14 were canceled
(id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A method of managing image data, comprising:

imaging a forward scene with a first camera assembly to
generate a forward scene image file;

imaging a rearward scene with a second camera assembly
to generate rearward scene image data; and

storing data derived from the rearward scene image data
with the forward scene image file as an indication of an identity
of the user of the camera assemblies wherein the data derived
from the rearward scene image data is a text identifier
associated with the user that is derived by applying a facial
recognition routine to the rearward scene image data and the
derived text identifier is stored as metadata of the forward scene
image file as an indication of an identity of the user of the
camera assemblies.

Claims 1, 6-10, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Funakura (U.S. 7,440,013 B2) in view of Steinberg
(U.S. 60/893,114) (Ans. 4-7).

Appeal 2011-010352
Application 11/763,469

3
FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Funakura
and Steinberg teaches or suggests “storing data derived from the rearward
scene image data with the forward scene image file as an indication of an
identity of the user of the camera assemblies wherein . . . the derived text
identifier is stored as metadata of the forward scene image file as an
indication of an identity of the user of the camera assemblies” (emphasis
added) as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in
independent claim 10?

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 10 as obvious because the combination of Funakura and
Steinberg does not teach or suggest the claim limitation emphasized above
(App. Br. 4-6). In support of their contention, Appellant argues that “there is
no indication [in Funakura] that this character data is derived by applying
facial recognition to a rearward scene image” (id. at 5). Appellant further
argues that Steinberg “never mentions taking a reward picture or identifying
the user of a camera . . . [and does not] teach or suggest storing any
metadata, much less a text identifier of an image’s photographer, as part of
the image” (id. at 6).
Appeal 2011-010352
Application 11/763,469

4
The Examiner, in support of the conclusion that the combination of
Funakura and Steinberg teaches storing text derived from a rearward scene
as metadata for a forward scene, found that Funakura discloses capturing an
image of a photographer and retrieving “the image of the photographer”
(Ans. 9). The Examiner also concluded that Steinberg teaches “determining
an identity of the person in a captured image through facial recognition,
deriving textual data from captured image based on the facial recognition,
and storing that textual data as metadata in the captured image” (id. at 11).
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion and underlying factual
findings. Funakura discloses a stop to “pick up person & camera user
simultaneously” (FIG. 4, step S4). Funakura also discloses a step to
“retrieve facial region of camera user in 1st image” (FIG. 4, step S5). In
addition, Steinberg discloses that after a picture is taken, “a face detection
routine then finds any faces in the picture” (p. 1, ll.26). Steinberg teaches
deriving contact data text from a captured image by “performing association
through a direct matching of face regions associated with each ‘known’
pattern with a member of a contact list” (p. 4, ll. 18-19). Steinberg also
teaches storing text as metadata of a captured image by providing “an
association between this new image and a communications device or system
with the person determined to be within the image … [such as] an e-mail
address or a mobile phone number” (p. 5, ll. 17-19).
Accordingly, we find that the claim limitation of deriving
identification text data from a rearward image by applying facial recognition
and storing the text data as metadata for an image is at least suggested by the
combination of Funakura’s teachings of applying facial recognition to a
rearward image and Steinberg’s teachings of associating contact data text
Appeal 2011-010352
Application 11/763,469

5
with an image. We find that such a combination yields predictable results.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Accordingly, we
find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 10.
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 dependent therefrom also fall because Appellant does
not set forth any separate and distinct patentability arguments for the
dependent claims (see App. Br. 4-6).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6-10, and 15-18
as unpatentable 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

pgc