Sony Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 2021

2020001477 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 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. 14/488,336 09/17/2014 Ryogo Ito 880001-5889-US00 8424 165569 7590 05/04/2021 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (SONY) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER PETERSON, CHRISTOPHER K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2021 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): DCipdocket@michaelbest.com ajheins@michaelbest.com nbenjamin@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RYOGO ITO, SHIRO ESHITA, MEGUMI TAKAGI, AYUMI YAMAMOTO, and KAZUMA AKAMATSU ____________________ Appeal 2020-001477 Application 14/488,336 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection of claims 1−20 mailed December 18, 2018. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s invention is an information processing apparatus including a wireless communication unit that performs communication 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 Sony Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-001477 Application No. 14/488,336 2 between the information processing apparatus and an imaging apparatus using short-range wireless communication. A control unit determines whether the imaging apparatus is physically attached to and in contact with the information processing apparatus, based on a result of the communication with the imaging apparatus that uses the short-range wireless communication. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. An information processing apparatus comprising: a first wireless communication circuitry configured to perform communication between the information processing apparatus and an imaging apparatus external to the information processing apparatus using short-range wireless communication; a second wireless communication circuitry configured to perform transmission or reception of an image data between the information processing apparatus and the imaging apparatus; and a control circuitry physically and electrically connected to the first wireless communication circuitry and the second wireless communication circuitry, and configured to determine whether or not the imaging apparatus is physically attached to and in contact with the information processing apparatus, based on a result of the communication with the imaging apparatus that uses the short-range wireless communication, wherein the result of the communication is determined by periodically transmitting a polling command from the information processing apparatus and, if the imaging apparatus is attached, receiving multiple polling responses from the imaging apparatus at predetermined time intervals. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Dua US 2006/0258289 A1 Nov. 16, 2006 Soar US 2012/0032632 A1 Feb. 9, 2012 Appeal 2020-001477 Application No. 14/488,336 3 Claims 1−20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dua and Soar. Non-Final Act. 4. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Aug. 14, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 17, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 17, 2019 ) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Dua and Soar teach or suggest control circuitry configured to determine whether or not the imaging apparatus is physically attached to and in contact with the information processing apparatus based on a result of the communication with the imaging apparatus? ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “control circuitry . . . configured to determine whether or not the imaging apparatus is physically attached to and in contact with the information processing apparatus, based on a result of the communication with the imaging apparatus that uses the short-range wireless communication.” The other independent claims (6 and 11−16) also recite this limitation. The Examiner finds that Soar teaches the claimed physical attachment and contact. Citing to Figure 2 of Soar, the Examiner finds that imaging apparatus 21 is attached physically, via universal twist lock mounting fixture, to the information processing apparatus. Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner here finds that “primary coil assembly 3 and primary power and Appeal 2020-001477 Application No. 14/488,336 4 data drive electronics” of Soar constitute the claimed “information processing apparatus.” Id. The Examiner disagrees with Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has construed the claim phrase “physically attached and in contact” as meaning “able to communicate.” Ans. 11. The Examiner analyzes Appellant’s Specification as disclosing that “if the first wireless communication circuitry and the second wireless communication circuitry are communicating then the control unit determines the imaging apparatus is mounted ([i.e.,] physically attached to and in contact).” Ans. 12 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that “physically attached and in contact” finds support in the Specification. Appellant cites to disclosure of the imaging apparatus as being “mounted on” or “fixed to” the information processing apparatus. Appeal Br. 14−15; Spec. 16, 18. Appellant cites to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “attached” as “joined or connected physically.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant further provides the OED definition of “contact,” as “the state or condition of touching.” Id. Appellant argues that mounting fixture 20 of Soar does not attach physically the electrical device 21 to drive electronics 30. Appeal Br. 17. “The armor panel 23 is necessarily interposed between the drive electronics 30 and the electrical device 21.” Id. Appeal 2020-001477 Application No. 14/488,336 5 Figure 2 of Soar is reproduced below: The Examiner’s finding in the Non-Final Action that Soar teaches the imaging apparatus physically attached to and in contact with the information processing apparatus makes no mention of armor panel 23, which is interposed physically in Soar between electronic device 21 (equated with the claimed imaging apparatus) and primary drive electronic circuit 30 (equated with the claimed information processing apparatus). In the Answer, the Examiner “analyzes the vehicle hull (16) to be the same as the body of the information processing apparatus (200).” Even assuming arguendo that the Examiner is correct, we find that the Appeal 2020-001477 Application No. 14/488,336 6 information processing apparatus (30) of Soar remains separated from the imaging apparatus (21) of Soar by armor panel 23. Despite the fact that the imaging apparatus 21 and electronic circuit 30 are enabled to communicate via the invention of Soar, we must interpret Appellant’s claims such that each of the words of the claims has meaning. Moreover, the broadest reasonable interpretation differs from the broadest possible interpretation. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also MPEP § 2111 (“The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings.”). To read the claimed invention as having an imaging apparatus and an information apparatus physically attached and in contact simply because the two elements are in communication with each other would cause the claim phrase “physically attached and in contact” to have no meaning. The only inquiry would be whether the two components can communicate, and the components’ actual physical attachment or contact would be of no moment. Put another way, even though Soar teaches that the imaging apparatus 21 and electronic circuit 30 of Soar communicate with each other, it is logically impossible for the control circuit of Soar to determine that the two components are physically attached and in contact, because the presence of interposing armor panel 23 prevents such physical attachment and contact. Because we must interpret the invention under appeal such that each claim term has meaning, we find that the combination of Dua and Soar does Appeal 2020-001477 Application No. 14/488,336 7 not teach or suggest all the limitations of the independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1−20. CONCLUSION The combination of Dua and Soar does not teach or suggest control circuitry configured to determine whether or not the imaging apparatus is physically attached to and in contact with the information processing apparatus based on a result of the communication with the imaging apparatus. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1−20 103 Dua, Soar 1−20 ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1−20 is reversed. REVERSED