Ex Parte Singh

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2013

11164641 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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. 11/164,641 11/30/2005 Munindar P. Singh I280/US 5640 49277 7590 03/27/2013 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC 5400 Trinity Road Suite 303 Raleigh, NC 27607 EXAMINER OSINSKI, MICHAEL S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2662 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2013 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 MUNINDAR P. SINGH Appeal 2012-002685 Application 11/164,6411 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 3-14, 19-33, 37, and 38. Claims 15-18 and 34-36 are allowed. Claims 1, 2, and 39 were canceled during prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Application filed Nov. 30, 2005. The real party in interest is Scenera Technologies, LLC. (Br. 3.) Appeal 2012-002685 Application 11/164,641 2 Invention Appellant’s invention relates to digital imaging, and more particularly to a method and system for automatically generating metadata for a digital image based on ambient conditions. (Spec. 1, ¶ 2.)2 Representative Claim Independent claim 3, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 3. A method for automatically generating metadata for a digital image, comprising: determining a plurality of ambient conditions associated with a location of a subject of the digital image captured with a mobile image capture device even when the mobile image capture device is in a different location, the ambient conditions existing at a time related to a time of capture of the digital image, wherein determining the plurality of ambient conditions further comprises determining variations of the ambient conditions over time by receiving readings of the ambient conditions at a plurality of times including at least one of a time before the time of capture, at the time of capture, and after the time of capture; aggregating the plurality of ambient conditions and transforming data associated with the plurality of ambient conditions into at least one ambient environment descriptor based on user-definable aggregation rules wherein the aggregating includes aggregating the variations of the ambient conditions determined over time, and the at least one ambient environment descriptor represents an ambient trend descriptor based on the user-definable aggregation rules; and 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed Jul. 15, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Aug. 24, 2011. Appeal 2012-002685 Application 11/164,641 3 associating the ambient trend descriptor with the digital image as metadata. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 3-14, 19-33, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tribble (US Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0289111 A1 published Dec. 29, 2005), Currans (US Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0104976 A1 published May 19, 2005), and Mikawa (US Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0047606 A1 published Mar. 11, 2004). Grouping of Claims Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of representative claim 3. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). ISSUE Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited combination of references would have taught or suggested “aggregating the ambient conditions includes aggregating variations of the ambient conditions over time, and the at least one ambient environment descriptor represents an ambient trend descriptor based on the user-definable aggregation rules” (claim 3 (emphasis added)), within the meaning of independent claim 3 and the commensurate language of claims 7, 15, 21, 37, and 38? ANALYSIS Appellant contends, inter alia: Tribble uses the terms “night” or “day” to indicate when a particular image was generated (see e.g., figure 28B and Appeal 2012-002685 Application 11/164,641 4 paragraph [0157]-[0158]), which clearly does not indicate any trends related to the particular digital image. Tribble teaches in paragraphs [0157]-[0158] that an image analysis “may be performed to determine the time (e.g., day vs. night) and the type (e.g., portrait, person, or landscape) of the image”. Thus, Tribble teaches that “night” or “day” is the time that an image was generated. Time is not a trend. Data from a single point in time such as the time when a picture is taken cannot be considered to be an aggregation over time since an aggregation over time requires more than one point in time. Thus, the Examiner's statement that “night” and “day” indicate a trend in the amount of ambient light present during image capturing operations improperly redefines what is taught by Tribble and is not remotely related to the teachings of Tribble. (Br. 28.) The Examiner contends, inter alia: According to the set “Rules” of Tribble, due to ambient darkness/lack of light of an imaging environment being detected over time because of [“]night,[”] an image is captured within the imaging environment using specific image capturing settings including an ISO sensitivity greater than 800 in conjunction with other specific image capture settings to account for the lack of light and is subsequently added to the category of [“]night.[”] (Ans. 21.) [H]owever the Examiner is maintaining that [“]night[”] and [“]day[”] in the context of the Tribble reference indicate a trend in the amount of ambient light present during image capturing operations as the amount of light directly varies the plurality of image capturing settings used in obtaining a captured image and the corresponding metadata associated therewith in order to classify a captured image into an image meeting the criteria for [“]day[”] classification having different imaging properties, and thus different associated metadata, than an image meeting the criteria for a [“]night[”] classification. (Ans. 22.) Appeal 2012-002685 Application 11/164,641 5 We find the Examiner’s interpretation reasonable and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings. We do not agree with Appellant that Tribble’s teachings are directed to “time” instead of the amount of ambient light. The descriptors (“night” and “day”) broadly, but reasonably, describe ambient conditions, i.e., amount of light at a given time. The lack of light is measured by the ISO sensitivity that accounts for the lack of light. The measured lack of light over a period of time is described as “night” (ambient environment descriptor). Moreover, we find that Mikawa teaches or suggests that the weather descriptions “fine,” or “cloudy,” are descriptions of ambient conditions for a particular event (over a period of time). (Mikawa, ¶¶ [0048], [0049].) With respect to “user-definable aggregation rules,” we agree with the Examiner that Tribble teaches the assignment and combination of the conditions present in the metadata (aggregation rules). (Ans. 6.) Further, we note that Appellant failed to file a Reply Brief to rebut the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Appellant also did not present arguments for the patentability of claims 4-14, 19-33, 37, and 38 with particularity. Therefore, claims 4-14, 19-33, 37, and 38 fall with claim 3. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3-14, 19-33, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2012-002685 Application 11/164,641 6 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-14, 19-33, 37, and 38 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