May Patents Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 2021

2020003781 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2021)

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. 15/213,914 07/19/2016 Yehuda BINDER BINDER-006-US10 4586 131926 7590 12/29/2021 May Patents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov P.O.B 7230 Ramat-Gan, 5217102 ISRAEL EXAMINER BUKOWSKI, KENNETH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2021 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 2020-003781 Application 15/213,914 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE In a Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1–12, 15–17, 19–34, 36–41, 43, 45–50, and 52–63, which constitute all claims on appeal. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 48–55.1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 1 One sentence in the Final Action indicates that claim 42 is rejected, and one sentence in the Appeal Brief indicates that claim 42 is being appealed. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 47. The Final Action, however, does not set forth a rejection of claim 42, and the Claims Appendix does not list claim 42 as being appealed. Final Act. 2–12; Appeal Br. 48–55. 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as May Patents Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003781 Application 15/213,914 2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject these claims. Appeal Br. 47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED INVENTION According to Appellant, “[t]he present invention relates generally to devices (such as displays) controlled by face detection.” Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A device for use with a Local Area Network (LAN) Cable simultaneously carrying DC power and bi-directional serial digital data over the same wires, the device comprising: a display for visually displaying information; a light sensor having an output responsive to the sensed light, the light sensor is mechanically attached to the display so that it maintains a fixed position relative to the display; a LAN connector for connecting to the LAN cable; a transceiver coupled to the LAN connector for transmitting the digital data to the LAN cable; and software and a processor to execute the software coupled to control the display and the transceiver, wherein the display, the light sensor, the transceiver, and the processor are coupled to the LAN connector for being powered by the DC power carried over the LAN cable. Appeal 2020-003781 Application 15/213,914 3 REFERENCES Name Reference Date Corbett US 6,061,434 May 9, 2000 Yamada US 2004/0052504A13 Mar. 18, 2004 Chinn US 2004/0053505 A1 Mar. 18, 2004 Binder US 2005/0163152 A1 July 28, 2005 Park US 2005/0163452 A1 July 28, 2005 Xu US 2007/0126884 A1 June 7, 2007 Kitaura US 2007/0132725 A1 June 14, 2007 Karam US 2008/0244284 A14 Oct. 9, 2008 REJECTIONS Claims 1–4, 6, 10–12, 15–17, 19, 21, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 52–545 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Binder and Xu. Final Act. 3. 3 The Final Action identifies Yamada as US2004/0053505. Final Act. 11. US2004/0053505 A1, however, is Chinn. The August 2, 2018 IDS in this application identifies Yamada as US2004/0052504 A1, which names Yamada as an inventor. 4 The Final Action identifies Karam as US 2008/0249284 A1 (Final Act. 10), but that publication number is for an application titled “Gene Encoding Labyrinthin, a Marker for Cancer” with James Radosevich as the named inventor. The May 8, 2018 Notices of References Cited in this application identifies Karam as US 2008/0244284 A1. 5 One sentence in the Final Action indicates that claims 18, 35, and 44 were also rejected as unpatentable over Binder and Xu. Final Act. 3. Claims 35 and 44, however, are not addressed in the Final Action’s discussion of that rejection (Id. at 3–7) and none of these three claims are listed as being on appeal in the Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 48–55). Appeal 2020-003781 Application 15/213,914 4 Claims 5, 20, 45, 46, and 55–57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Binder, Xu, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Final Act. 8. Claims 7–9, 33, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Binder, Xu, and Kitaura. Final Act. 7. Claims 22, 23, 48, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Binder, Xu, and Cho. Final Act. 9. Claims 24 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Binder, Xu, and Karam. Final Act. 10. Claims 25–29 and 58–62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Binder, Xu, and Yamada. Final Act. 11. Claims 30 and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Binder, Xu, Yamada, and Corbett. Final Act. 12. ANALYSIS Having considered the positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellant in light of this appeal record, unless noted otherwise, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer to the Appeal Brief and Final Office Action appealed from, which we adopt as our own. We add the following explanations primarily for emphasis. A. Analogous Art: Binder and Xu Appellant argues that Binder and Xu are not analogous art. Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner disagrees, finding that Appellant’s claimed invention relates to image capture and transfer of data related to the image capture. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Binder is in this field of endeavor. Id. Appeal 2020-003781 Application 15/213,914 5 Further, the Examiner finds that Xu is also in this field of endeavor because Xu deals with data transfer between an image capture device and a display. Id. (citing Xu, ¶ 15, Figs. 1–2). Appellant argues that Appeal No. 2016-002457 decided that Xu’s field of endeavor is user gesture detection through image capture and analysis to provide a desired output, functionality or effect on the display system and that Xu concerns the use of face detection/recognition from a user’s image in controlling television display. Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4. Further, Appellant argues that, in Serial No. 13/658,080, the Examiner found Xu’s field of endeavor to be the use of face detection/recognition from a user’s image in controlling television display. Appeal Br. 8. We agree with the Examiner that what Appellant discloses at its invention relates to image capture and transfer of data related to the image capture. Spec. 1–2 (“a central image captured”), 2 (“face detection algorithm is performed by an image processor, using the image captured by the digital camera”), 6 (“image captured”), 7, 11–13, 16, 20, 22 (“[t]he image captured is transmitted from the camera 16 to the image processor 12 within the control box 11 via a communication link 26”), 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 57, Figs. 10, 15, 19, 26–28, 35, 46–50, 53, 54. We also agree with the Examiner that Binder and Xu are within this field of endeavor. Ans. 4. Appellant does not dispute that Binder is in this field of endeavor. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 4. Xu is also in the same field of endeavor: Xu shows a camera 110 capturing data; transmitting the data to control unit 108 and onto television display 102 via parameter setting unit Appeal 2020-003781 Application 15/213,914 6 104. Xu, Fig. 1. Xu also discloses a live video stream on television display 102 from camera 110. Id. ¶ 15. The fact that the fields of invention for other applications may have been formulated differently and Xu was found to be within those fields does not impact our analysis here. Xu can be in more than one formulated field of endeavor, and as set forth above, Xu is in the field of endeavor here. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Binder and Xu are analogous art. B. Reference to Claims 39–41 and 75 in the Final Action Appellant argues that the Final Action’s rejection of claim 53 is flawed, because, in making that rejection, the Final Action refers to claim 75, but this application has no claim 75. Appeal Br. 23–24. Appellant further argues the Final Action refers to functions of claims 39–41 that those claims in this application do not recite. Id. The Examiner clarifies that the Final Action in the pertinent section refers to claims 39–41 and 75 in Binder, that Binder has a claim 75, and that claims 39–41 of Binder have the recited functions. Ans. 11–12. Appellant does not dispute, and we agree with the Examiner, that Binder contains a claim 75 and that claims 39–41 of Binder have the recited functions. Reply Br. 14; Binder, 8 (claims 39–41), 10 (claim 75). For the reasons set forth by the Final Action and the Answer, we sustain the rejection of claim 53. Final Act. 6; Ans. 11–12. Appeal 2020-003781 Application 15/213,914 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 10–12, 15–17, 19, 21 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, 52–54 Binder, Xu 1–4, 6, 10–12, 15–17, 19, 21 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, 52–54 5, 20, 45, 46, 55–57 103(a) Binder, Xu, AAPA 5, 20, 45, 46, 55–57 7–9, 33, 38, 39 103(a) Binder, Xu, Kitaura 7–9, 33, 38, 39 22, 23, 48, 49 103(a) Binder, Xu, Cho 22, 23, 48, 49 24, 50 103(a) Binder, Xu, Karman 24, 50 25–29, 58–62 103(a) Binder, Xu, Yamada 25–29, 58–62 30, 63 103(a) Binder, Xu, Yamada, Corbett 30, 63 Overall Outcome 1–12, 15–17, 19–34, 36–41, 43, 45–50, 52–63 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED