Ex Parte BinderDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 4, 201713528205 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 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. 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 Claims 2, 4—24, 26—28, and 33—47 have been withdrawn while claims 3 and 32 have been canceled.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation