NOVANTA INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 23, 2021

2020000552 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 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.
15/117,975 08/10/2016 Amir BAGHDADI 10832-730.US0 1318
66854 7590 04/23/2021
SHAY GLENN LLP
2929 CAMPUS DRIVE
SUITE 225
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
EXAMINER
PERVAN, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
info@shayglenn.com
shayglenn_pair@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AMIR BAGHDADI, CHAD CHANG, LAM HUYNH,
DANIEL ORNELAS, JONAH POST, RAINER SCHOLL, and
DARKO SPOLJARIC
____________

Appeal 2020-000552
Application 15/117,975
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3–17, 19, and 20, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Novanta
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000552
Application 15/117,975
2
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention relates “generally to a wireless
and cordless mobile medical display system, and more particularly, to a
wireless and cordless mobile medical display system able to receive and/or
transmit information having battery backup system for powering the wireless
and cordless surgical mobile display systems.” Spec. ¶ 3.2
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A cordless wireless mobile display system for use in a
surgical procedure room comprising:
a display;
a wireless receiver in communication with the display
adapted to receive real time video signals for display by the
display and
a wireless transmitter in communication with the display
adapted to transmit real time video signals;
a battery assembly that provides power to the display, the
battery assembly comprising:
a primary battery, wherein the primary battery
provides power to the display under normal operation; and
a secondary battery wherein the secondary battery
is able to provide power to the cordless mobile display
system upon the primary battery’s output falls below a
predetermined output value;
a battery controller;
a battery charging station; and

2 We refer to the Specification filed Aug. 10, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action mailed Jan. 10, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed June 4, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 19, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the
Reply Brief filed Oct. 30, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-000552
Application 15/117,975
3
a mobile stand supporting the display, the receiver, the
transmitter, the battery assembly, and the battery charging
station.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Name Reference Date
Remy US 2005/0052527 A1 Mar. 10, 2005
Coonan US 2009/0212738 A1 Aug. 27, 2009
Clark US 2011/0279958 A1 Nov. 17, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–7, 9–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Coonan and Remy. Final Act. 3.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Coonan, Remy, and Clark. Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3–7, 9–17, 19, and 20
Claim 1 recites “a wireless receiver in communication with the
display adapted to receive real time video signals for display by the display
and a wireless transmitter in communication with the display adapted to
transmit real time video signals” (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Remy’s wireless receiver/transmitter teaches
the disputed limitations. Final Act. 4 (citing Remy ¶¶ 10, 25, 27, 32).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Remy’s “wireless receiver/transmitter”
used “in the system and broadcasting real-time video via satellite uplink”
teaches the claimed wireless receiver and wireless transmitter. Ans. 4 (citing
Remy ¶¶ 25, 27); see also id. (citing Remy ¶ 6).
Appeal 2020-000552
Application 15/117,975
4
Appellant argues that although Remy “includes a reference to ‘a
wireless microphone and wireless receiver/transmitter,’” there is no
description “what kind of information (e.g., video versus audio) is being
transmitted.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Remy ¶ 27); see also id. (citing Remy
¶¶ 38, 42); Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant also argues that “Remy’s system does
not broadcast . . . real time video.” Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. As cited by the Examiner, Remy discloses “a mobile video imaging,
video communication, video production (VCVP) system designed
specifically for health care and surgical video imaging,” which provides
“real time video and data communications capabilities.” Remy ¶ 10. Remy
discloses “video production and communication equipment inside the
platform” that “includes a plurality of auxiliary inputs for connection of . . .
remote video cameras.” Id. ¶ 27. Remy’s “system also includes a wireless
microphone and wireless receiver/transmitter.” Id.
Appellant does not persuasively explain why Remy’s wireless
receiver/transmitter, along with remote video cameras, to provide real time
video communications, fails to teach or otherwise suggest the claimed
“wireless receiver . . . to receive real time video signals” and the claimed
“wireless transmitter . . . to transmit real time video signals.”
Appellant also argues that there is no “rationale for the obviousness of
modifying Coonan’s battery charging station” with Remy to include the
claimed “wireless real time video components.” Appeal Br. 5–6; see also
Reply Br. 3.
Although Appellant argues that the Examiner did not provide a
rationale, Examiner’s rational was set forth in the Final Action. See Final
Act. 5. Specifically, the Examiner determines that it would have been
Appeal 2020-000552
Application 15/117,975
5
obvious to “modify Coonan with the teachings of Remy, a cordless wireless
mobile display system, because all of the components would be in one place
removing the need to go to a designated charging station.” Final Act. 5.
The Examiner further determines that “the benefit of having everything
being located on one mobile system which allows for a single trained person
to provide video imaging, video communication and video production which
without everything on one mobile unit would need a crew with
corresponding equipment to provide the same functionality.” Ans. 4–5
(emphasis added) (citing Remy ¶ 10). That is, the Examiner provided a
rationale for combining all of the elements, including Remy’s video imaging
and communication equipment, i.e., the wireless transmitter and wireless
receiver.
We are not persuaded of error based on Appellant’s argument because
it does not address the reasoning relied on by the Examiner and, thus, does
not adequately address the rejection on appeal. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner in finding a reason to combine the teachings of Remy and Coonan.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, along with independent claims 13, 19, and 20, and dependent claims
3–7, 9–12, and 14–17, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 6.
Claim 8
With respect to dependent claim 8, Appellant merely contend that
because Clark—the additional reference cited in rejecting the claims—does
not cure the shortcomings of the other references applied against claim 1, the
Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 8.
App. Br. 6. Because we determine that the rejection of claim 1 is not
erroneous for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of
claim 8.
Appeal 2020-000552
Application 15/117,975
6
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1, 3–17, 19,
and 20.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 9–
17, 19, 20
103 Coonan, Remy 1, 3–7, 9–
17, 19, 20

8 103 Coonan, Remy,
Clark
8
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–17, 19,
20

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