Ex Parte Sorvari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2012

11268695 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANTTI SORVARI, JUKKA-PEKKA SALMENKAITA, and JOONAS PAALASMAA ____________________ Appeal 2010-011157 Application 11/268,695 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-011157 Application 11/268,695 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 The Invention Appellants’ invention is directed to methods for characterizing content item groups and, in particular, to the management of visual content, for example, visual content in small screen devices such as mobile phones. Spec. p. 1 ¶ [0001]). Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention which is reproduced below (emphasis added to disputed limitations): 1. A method for representing content organized as content items in a hierarchical node structure on a graphical user interface, comprising: selecting at least one content item representative of the content items in a node based upon at least one criteria associated with the content, the at least one criteria including one of a criteria group comprising favoriteness information based on automatic recognition of favorite contents and content analysis, the content analysis including the use of methods selected from a content analysis group consisting of content item similarity, content item dissimilarity, face detection, face recognition, technical capturing parameter similarity, metadata, context awareness, and combinations thereof; and selecting at least one representation of the representative content item, the at least one representation selected from the group consisting of image representation, 1 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Mar. 23, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 6, 2010); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 8, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed Aug. 20, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Nov. 7, 2005). Appeal 2010-011157 Application 11/268,695 3 video representation, textual representation, audio representation, and combinations thereof, wherein the representation provides information regarding the content items in the node. Prior Art The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Yeo US 5,821,945 Oct. 13, 1998 Watson US 2006/0259867 A1 Nov. 16, 2006 Obrador US 7,149,755 B2 Dec. 12, 2006 Dean US 2007/0088692 A1 Apr. 19, 2007 Rejections on Appeal A. Claims 1 and 7-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Obrador and Watson in view of Yeo. Ans. 4. B. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Obrador, Watson, and Yeo in view of Dean. Ans. 8. GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based upon Appellants’ arguments against the rejection of claim 1 and Appellants’ statement regarding the similarity of independent claims 16 and 21 to claim 1, lack of separate arguments against the rejection of claims 3 and 4 (App. Br. 8-16; Reply Br. 2-3), and based upon our authority under 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 1 as the representative claim to decide this appeal in accordance with those arguments and rejections. Thus, claims 3, 4, and 7-25 stand or fall with independent claim 1. Appeal 2010-011157 Application 11/268,695 4 APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS Appellants contend that “Obrador is merely directed to systems and methods of presenting media objects, such that, e.g., a user may browse through a collection of media objects via a set of links between the media objects.” App. Br. 9, citing Obrador at Abstract and col. 4, l. 65- col. 5, l. 2. Appellants further contend in this regard that Obrador is merely concerned with linking and displaying media objects to a particular media file simultaneously with the particular media file. App. Br. 10. Appellants also contend that Obrador is silent regarding any description of any process, system or method directed to the selection of a representative item. Id. In addition, Appellants contend that: Moreover, in no way does, e.g., media file 120 provide information regarding the content items in the node. Again, all that would be displayed to a user is the media file 120, and other media objects that happen to be linked to the media file 120. Even if the user may be aware of a certain organization parameter by which media objects and the media file are linked, the media file itself is not representative of, nor does it provide information regarding the media objects. Id. Appellants go on to contend that: [R]egardless of how the media objects of Obrador may be linked/chosen/clustered to a particular media file of Obrador, nothing in Obrador teaches or suggests the selection of at least one content item representative of content items in a node based upon at least one criteria associated with the content, and the Appeal 2010-011157 Application 11/268,695 5 selection of at least one representation of the representative content item, wherein the representation provides information regarding the content items in the node. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants contend that Obrador teaches away from independent claims 1, 16, and 21 because the reference is directed to allowing a user to browse a plurality of media objects, rather than providing “a better/the best representation of content items (that aren't seen)”. App. Br. 12. Furthermore, Appellants contend that: [R]egardless of how the terms media “object” or media “file” are interpreted in the context of Obrador, it remains that even in an embodiment where media objects may be clustered hierarchically, a representative content item is not displayed/selected/presented in Obrador because multiple media objects are presented to the user. Reply Br. 3. Finally, “Appellant[s] again submit[] that at best, Obrador merely teaches grouping media objects into a cluster, but that multiple ‘high level’ media objects are still presented to the user, in direct contrast to the various claimed embodiments disclosed in the pending claims of the present application.” Reply Br. 3. ISSUE Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Obrador in combination with Watson and Yeo teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, particularly the limitations of “selecting at least one content item representative of the content items in a Appeal 2010-011157 Application 11/268,695 6 node based upon at least one criteria associated with the content . . . and selecting at least one representation of the representative content item, . . . wherein the representation provides information regarding the content items in the node,” as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claim 1, and we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 4-6) in response to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8-16). However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. In particular, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that Obrador teaches or suggests the limitations “selecting at least one content item representative of the content items in a node based upon at least one criteria associated with the content . . . and selecting at least one representation of the representative content item, . . . wherein the representation provides information regarding the content items in the node,” as recited in independent claim 1. Further in this regard, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Obrador’s teaching (see col. 10:3-57) that “[i]n general, the media objects of a cluster at one level in the hierarchy are represented by a single media object in a cluster at the next higher level,” meets the claimed limitation of Appeal 2010-011157 Application 11/268,695 7 “selecting at least one representation of the representative content item,” as recited in claim 1. We further point out that Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 12) that “Obrador is . . . directed to allowing a user to browse a plurality of media objects, not provide a better/the best representation of content items (that aren’t seen)” is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 requires “selecting at least one representation of the representative content item . . . wherein the representation provides information regarding the content items in the node,” (emphasis added). This claim recitation does not preclude browsing and selecting from a plurality of media objects, nor does it require a “better” or “best” representation of content items, seen or unseen, as argued by Appellants. Therefore, Appellants have not provided persuasive arguments that establish that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 1, such that we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejection of claims 3, 4 and 7-25 which fall with claim 1. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-25 is affirmed. Appeal 2010-011157 Application 11/268,695 8 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) (2011). AFFIRMED ELD