Ex Parte Lipson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2017

12975192 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2017)

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.
12/975,192 12/21/2010 Pamela R. Lipson 92091 -000122US-795419 4999
20350 7590 03/16/2017
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
KIM, PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAMELA R. LIPSON and PAWAN SINHA
Appeal 2016-007095
Application 12/975,192
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, WILLIAM M. FINK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007095
Application 12/975,192
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—22 and 73, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[m]ethod[s] and systems for search and
retrieval of images with an image processing system.” (Abstract.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative:
1. An image processing engine for search and retrieval of im­
ages, the image processing engine comprising:
an output interface;
an input interface, wherein the input interface accepts a selec­
tion of a plurality of images to use in a search query;
a plurality of target images; and
an image processing system, wherein:
the image processing system uses the plurality of images
in the search query by using computed visual similarity of the
plurality of images to refine the search query, and
the image processing system determines a subset of the
plurality of target images that are similar to the plurality of
images by comparing, with a computer, each of the plurality
of images with each of the plurality of target images, wherein
the comparing includes aligning an origin of at least one of
the plurality of images with a reference point in at least one
of the target images.
1 Appellants identify “Imagen, Inc., who is the licensee of this technology
and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the assignee of the above-
identified application” as the real parties in interest. (See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal 2016-007095
Application 12/975,192
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3—22, and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mehrotra et al. (US 6,115,717; issued Sept. 5, 2000),
Katayama et al. (US 5,982,951; issued Nov. 9, 1999), and Sato et al. (US
6,246,804 Bl; issued June 12, 2001). (See Final Act. 2—6.)
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mehrotra, Katayama, Sato, and Applicant-Admitted Prior
Art. (See Final Act. 6.)
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejections are in error for the
following reasons:
1. Sato does not teach or suggest “the image processing system
uses the plurality of images in the search query by using computed visual
similarity of the plurality of images to refine the search query,” as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 16. (See App. Br.
9-11.)
2. “The combination of three wildly different image processing
references is illogical as they each do their own image processing” and “the
combination is merely motivated by impermissible hindsight reconstruction
using our claims as a template.” (App. Br. 11.)
3. “Mehrotra is not proper for any obviousness rejection”
because “[i]t is the wrong field of endeavor and it is solving an open space
mapping problem for publishing applications and not image search.” (App.
Br. 11.)
3
Appeal 2016-007095
Application 12/975,192
ANALYSIS
We find Appellants’ first contention unpersuasive because, while it is
true that “Sato is processing a single image in its search algorithm,” the
Examiner is not relying on Sato for the input of multiple images. Instead,
the Examiner cites Mehrotra as teaching the input interface accepting a
selection of a plurality of images and Sato as teaching use of a compound
image in the search query. (See Ans. 2—3; Final Act. 3, citing Mehrotra
3:44—60 as teaching “an input interface, wherein the input interface accepts
selection of a plurality of images to use in a search query”). In other words,
the combination contemplates input of multiple images, as taught in
Mehrotra, and combination of those images, as taught in Sato. Appellants’
argument is ineffective because “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).2
Regarding Appellants’ “hindsight” contention, the Examiner finds that
“it would have been obvious ... to improve the invention of Mehrotra with
that of Katayama for the predictable result of a system wherein images may
be searched for by seeking similar corresponding points within said images.”
(Final Act. 4.) The Examiner further concludes that “it would have been
obvious ... to improve the combination of Mehrotra and Katayama with . . .
2 We also note the claims do not require the “multiple hand-selected similar
images” that Appellants assert are “[k]ey to [their] claimed search
algorithm.” (App. Br. 10.) Regarding Appellants’ cat image example (id.),
claim 1 simply requires “a selection of a plurality of images to use in a
search query”—there is no requirement that the input images all be images
of cats, or any other single subject.
4
Appeal 2016-007095
Application 12/975,192
Sato for the predictable result of a system wherein a computed visual
similarity is calculated (i.e. a crossing region of movable regions) from a
plurality of images in a search query (i.e. single region and compound
region) to determine a subset of plurality of target images.” {Id. at 4.)
Appellants do not sufficiently address these findings. Instead, Appellants
merely assert that the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight because
“[ijmage processing algorithms are very complex and mixing and matching
bits and pieces” of the relied-upon references “makes no sense.” (App. Br.
11.) Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us the Examiner used impermissible hindsight reconstruction and,
therefore, Appellants fail to persuade us the combination is not based on
properly articulated reasoning supported by a rational underpinning. See In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ non-analogous art
argument. A reference qualifies as analogous prior art if it either is “from
the same field of endeavor” or “is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Comaper Corp. v. Antec,
Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Here, both the instant
application and Mehrotra are directed to retrieving images from databases of
images—the same field of endeavor. Compare Spec. 13 (“This invention
relates to information search and retrieval systems and more particularly to
search and retrieval systems which utilize in whole or in part image
processing techniques.”), with Mehrotra 1:16—19 (“The invention relates . . .
in particular to computer implemented processes for storing and retrieving
images in an indexed image database.”).
5
Appeal 2016-007095
Application 12/975,192
Because we are not persuaded the Examiner erred, we sustain the
Section 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 3—22, and 73. Because Appellants do
not separately argue the patentability of dependent claim 2, we also sustain
the rejection over the foregoing combination and Applicant Admitted Prior
Art. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—22 and 73 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6