Ex Parte Lipson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 14, 201712975192 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation