Ex Parte Binder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2017

13528205 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 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.
13/528,205 06/20/2012 Yehuda BINDER BINDER-005-US2 3035
131926 7590 10/05/2017
May Patents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov
P.O.B 7230
Ramat-Gan, 5217102
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2017 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 YEHUDA BINDER
Appeal 2016-001549
Application 13/528,205
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-001549
Application 13/528,205
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 25, 29-31, 48, and 49. App. Br. 1. Claims 2, 4—24, 26—28, and
33—47 have been withdrawn while claims 3 and 32 have been canceled. See
Amendment dated May 29, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to electric shavers
having electronic imaging functions.” Spec. 1:3—4. Apparatus claim 1, the
sole independent claim on appeal, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter and is reproduced below:
1. An electrically operated hair removing device for
removing hair from a skin area comprising a casing, the casing
further comprising a camera module for imaging at least part of
the skin area, the camera module comprising:
an optical lens for focusing received light mechanically
oriented to focus the image of at least part of the skin area;
a photosensitive image sensor array disposed
approximately at an image focal point plane of said optical lens
for capturing the image in a non-visible spectrum and
producing electronic image information representing the image;
an analog to digital (A/D) converter coupled to said
image sensor for generating digital data representation of the
image;
a port for coupling a signal to the communication
medium;
an image processor coupled to said analog to digital
converter for generating a digital data video signal carrying a
digital data video that comprises the electronic image
information in a digital video format; and
2
Appeal 2016-001549
Application 13/528,205
a transmitter coupled between said port and said image
processor for transmitting the digital data video signal to the
communication medium.
REFERENCES
Watanabe US 2002/0024611 A1
Ihama US 2005/0225656 A1
Fujimura US 7,372,504 B2
Hanson US 2009/0147081 A1
Ryan IE 2006/0420
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”), i.e., “Digital Media
System-on-Chip device TMS320DM357 from Texas Instruments
Incorporated of Dallas Texas, U.S.A.” (Spec. 14:14—15) and “power line
communication, page 27, line 11 page 31, line 3” (Final Act. 9).
Feb. 28, 2002
Oct. 13, 2005
May 13, 2008
June 11, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ryan, Ihama, Hanson, and Fujimura.
Claims 1 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ryan, Ihama, Hanson, and AAPA.
Claims 1 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ryan, Ihama, Watanabe, Hanson, and Fujimura.
Claims 1 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ryan, Ihama, Watanabe, Hanson, and AAPA.
Claims 25, 29—31, and 481 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over (i) the combination of Ryan, Ihama, Watanabe, Hanson,
1 The Examiner initially included claim 32 and excluded claim 48 in this
rejection (see Final Act. 9) but such was remedied in the Examiner’s Answer
(see Ans. 9) where claim 32 is no longer listed and claim 48 is listed.
3
Appeal 2016-001549
Application 13/528,205
and Fujimura; (ii) the combination of Ryan, Ihama, Watanabe, Hanson, and
AAPA; (iii) the combination of Ryan, Ihama, Hanson, and Fujimura; and,
(iv) the combination of Ryan, Ihama, Hanson, and AAPA.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1 and 49
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation, “a photosensitive image
sensor array ... for capturing the image in a non-visible spectrum and
producing electronic image information representing the image.” Claim 49
depends directly from claim 1 and recites, “wherein the non-visible spectrum
is in an infrared or ultraviolet spectrum.”
In each of the four rejections of claims 1 and 49, the Examiner
acknowledges that either Ryan (two of the rejections) or Watanabe (the other
two) “teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the
photosensitive image sensor capturing image in infrared or ultraviolet
spectrum.”2 Final Act. 3, 5, 6, 8. In each rejection, the Examiner relies on
Ihama for teaching “a photosensitive image sensor capturing image in
2 It is noted that, regarding the two rejections relying on Ryan, the Examiner
also relies on Ryan for the “producing” limitation as well. Final Act. 2, 4.
The Examiner is not so explicit on this point with respect to the two
rejections relying on Watanabe. See Final Act. 6—8. However, in the
Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner states, “[t]he expression ‘capturing an
image in a non-visible spectrum’ describes” both the “capturing/absorbing
ultraviolet and/or infrared light” and such light being “converted to a
visible image on a display.” Ans. 10. Appellant acknowledges, “capturing
the image in a non-visible spectrum, as defined in claim 1 on appeal,
includes ‘producing electronic image information representing the image.’”
Reply Br. 2.
4
Appeal 2016-001549
Application 13/528,205
infrared or ultraviolet spectrum for providing better images. See the
Abstract.” Final Act. 3, 5, 7, 8.
Appellant acknowledges the four separate rejections of claims 1 and
49 stating, “[a]ll four rejections rely on the examiner’s interpretation of
Ihama, to be discussed below.” App. Br. 3. Appellant contends, “Ihama
teaches away from the present invention by eliminating infrared and
ultraviolet wavelengths from the resulting image.” App. Br. 4.
Ihama discloses an imaging sensor having a stacked structure whose
different layers address different wavelengths of the spectrum. See Ihama
Abstract. Lower layers pertain to “blue light, green light and red light”
while upper layers pertain to “at least one of an ultraviolet absorbing layer,
an infrared absorbing layer, a black visible light absorbing layer,” a layer
pertaining to electromagnetic waves, “and a yellow filter layer.” Ihama
Abstract; see also 1110,11, 32, 33. Ihama explains that such “absorbing”
layers3 are provided because “the color reproduction and resolution are
enhanced.” Ihama 19.
More specifically, Ihama teaches that by providing an “ultraviolet
absorbing layer” and an “infrared absorbing layer,” the “wavelengths of
different colors can be efficiently separated and color mixing can be
prevented, as a result, high resolution with good color reproducibility can be
obtained.” Ihama 131; see also Tflf 32—33. Hence, there is a basis for
Appellant’s contention that “[t]he term ‘absorbing’ in general, and as used in
the Ihama reference in particular, refers to receiving and dissipating
3 Ihama distinguishes between these “absorbing” layers and
“absorbing/photoelectrically converting” layers that pertain to “blue light,
green light and red light.” Ihama 19; see also Reply Br. 2—3.
5
Appeal 2016-001549
Application 13/528,205
(typically by heat) the incident light, without retaining or converting the
information carried by the light.”4 Reply Br. 2.
Thus, although the Examiner asserts that “[tjhere is no difference
between the terms ‘capturing’ and ‘absorbing’” (Ans. 10; see also Reply Br.
2), sole independent claim 1 additionally and specifically recites the
limitation of “producing electronic image information representing the
image” (with the “image” being captured “in a non-visible spectrum”).
Consequently, since Ihama is directed to removing or “absorbing” ultraviolet
and/or infrared light from further involvement in the resultant image, the
Examiner does not explain how Ihama teaches any subsequent production of
image information representative of such light. The Examiner’s attempt at
doing so by annotating Paragraph 9 of Ihama (see Ans. 11—12) is not
persuasive that Ihama teaches anything other than the removal of the
infrared/ultraviolet signals. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that
Ihama “teaches away” “by eliminating infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths
from the resulting image” (App. Br. 4) rather than “producing electronic
image information representing the image” that was captured “in a non-
visible spectrum” as recited.
We reverse the Examiner’s various rejections of claims 1 and 49 in
view of the Examiner’s reliance on Ihama as stated therein. The Examiner’s
additional rejection of dependent claims 25, 29-31, and 48 does not cure this
defect and thus, the rejection of these dependent claims is reversed as well.
4 Appellant also contends, “[i]n the Ihama reference, the uppermost layer
acts to absorb the non-visible light so that this light is prevented from being
received by the lower layers (Ihama, paragraphs 0031-0033).” Reply Br. 2.
6
Appeal 2016-001549
Application 13/528,205
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 25, 29-31, 48, and 49 are
reversed.
REVERSED
7