Seyedmansour Moinzadeh et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 2020

2020000241 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2020)

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. 15/003,722 01/21/2016 Seyedmansour Moinzadeh 1000B-031 1156 132873 7590 10/29/2020 NovoTechIP International PLLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite #1025 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2020 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): admin@novotechip.com akhlaghi@novotechip.com docketing@novotechip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SEYEDMANSOUR MOINZADEH, SEYEDEH RASTA MOEINZADEH, and SEYEDEH ROSHA MOEINZADEH ____________________ Appeal 2020-000241 Application 15/003,722 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14. Appeal Br. 11, 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Seyedmansour Moinzadeh. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000241 Application 15/003,722 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. An electronic magnifier comprising: [A.] a camera capturing an image from a document or a picture; [B.] an image processing module for receiving the captured image, the image processing module including [i.] a processor for [a.] receiving at least one input from a user and [b.] modifying the captured image based on the at least one input via a signal conditioning component, the image processing module also including [ii.] an amplifier for [a.] amplifying the modified image and [b.] generating a composite video output including a magnified image based on the captured image; [C.] a USB converter module for receiving the composite video output, the USB converter module including an analog to digital converter for converting the [] received composite video output into a digital signal and a USB converter for converting the digital signal to a USB output; and [D.] a WiFi converter module for receiving the USB output from the USB converter module, the WiFi converter module including a transceiver for receiving the USB output and sending the USB output as a WiFi output to a device having a display monitor for displaying the magnified image, [E.] wherein the amplifier amplifies the modified image by increasing a power of the modified image. Appeal 2020-000241 Application 15/003,722 3 REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Salow US 2012/0188345 A1 July 26, 2012 Moinzadeh US 2013/0088582 A1 Apr. 11, 2013 Fisher US 2014/0269425 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Altman US 2014/0355446 A1 Dec. 4, 2014 This Panel cites the following additional references: Name Reference Date Winser US 2007/0033542 A1 Feb. 8, 2007 Garud US 2011/0122242 A1 May 26, 2011 Dent US 2012/0147246 A1 June 14, 2012 Tanabe US 2014/0267676 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Schweitzer US 2017/0068084 A1 Mar. 9, 2017 REJECTIONS3 A. The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 and 12–14, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Salow, Altman, and Moinzadeh. Final Act. 9–17. 2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by reference to the first named inventor only. 3 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-000241 Application 15/003,722 4 We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are determinative as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merit of the § 103 rejection of claims 2–10 and 12–14 further herein. B. The Examiner rejects claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Salow, Altman, Moinzadeh, and Fisher. Final Act. 17. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are determinative as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merit of the § 103 rejection of claim 11 further herein. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss are determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s other contentions are not discussed in detail herein. A.1. As reproduced supra, parts B and E of claim 1 require (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): [B.] an image processing module for receiving the captured image, the image processing module including [i.] a processor for [a.] receiving at least one input from a user and [b.] modifying the captured image based on the at least one input via a signal conditioning component, Appeal 2020-000241 Application 15/003,722 5 the image processing module also including [ii.] an amplifier for [a.] amplifying the modified image and [b.] generating a composite video output including a magnified image based on the captured image; . . . [E.] wherein the amplifier amplifies the modified image by increasing a power of the modified image. A.2. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that the features of parts B and E are taught in paragraph 20 and Figures 1, 3, and 6 of Salow. Final Act. 10, 12. A.3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because: [Salow at] paragraph [20] teaches that the processor is connected to controls of the image recording device, among which are zoom lens controls. First, being connected to controls of the image recording device is not the same as the image processing module being configured to receive the captured image and generate a magnified image based on the captured image. Second, teaching that the image recording device includes zoom lens controls suggests that the recording device can zoom into the view it intends to capture to record a close-up image. This does not teach receiving a captured image and then magnifying the captured image. Stated differently, the zoom control feature of Salow enables capturing an enlarged imaged but post capturing no magnification is done to the image. Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2020-000241 Application 15/003,722 6 A.4. As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”). “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately explain the Examiner’s findings of fact. We agree with Appellant that “Salow enables capturing an enlarged imaged but[,] post capturing[,] no magnification is done to the image.” Appeal Br. 13. We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s argument, that there is currently insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that Salow teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious parts B and E as required by claim 1. Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention. A.5. From our review of the record, it appears that the Examiner has overlooked several prior art areas that appear more relevant that the surgical magnifier prior art before us. First, we recommend that the Examiner Appeal 2020-000241 Application 15/003,722 7 consider “digital microscope” art by, for example, searching for this term in the titles and abstracts of patents and published applications. See, e.g., Garud (US 2011/0122242 A1), Tanabe (US 2014/0267676 A1), and Schweitzer (US 2017/0068084 A1). Second, we recommend the Examiner consider Dent (US 2012/0147246 A1) from the camera art—specifically the teachings in figure 3 and paragraphs 23–24 related to zooming in on portions of a captured image. Third, as to Appellant’s claim 4, we recommend the Examiner consider Winser (US 2007/0033542 A1) from the image magnifying art—specifically, the teachings of paragraphs 3–6 related to zooming in on an image using a slider. CONCLUSION The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. Appeal 2020-000241 Application 15/003,722 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–10, 12–14 103 Salow, Altman, Moinzadeh 1–10, 12–14 11 103 Salow, Altman, Moinzadeh, Fisher 11 Overall Outcome 1–14 REVERSED