...filter the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is
a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein
the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image;
and transmit, via the wireless transmitter and to a second mobile device, the filtered plurality of photographic images.
Invaliding prior art has to cover every single thing in the claim. (And my hunch is that it's out there).
Based on my understanding, the patent still needs to represent an "inventive step" from the prior art. Let's say you can show that
A. Classifying images based on a (pre-existing?) identification;
B. Filtering images based on classification;
C. Wirelessly transmitting images
were all known at the time. Then you could argue that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would have known to combine A+B+C to solve the problem. Thus the prior art teaches the invention and the patent should be declared invalid.
This isn't wrong. But it's oversimplified and in practice in the US obviousness arguments have a low likelihood of success, lower if it gets too a jury trial.
You are much better off defending again infringement suits with novelty arguments.
...filter the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image; and transmit, via the wireless transmitter and to a second mobile device, the filtered plurality of photographic images.
Invaliding prior art has to cover every single thing in the claim. (And my hunch is that it's out there).