Wilcox Industries Corp.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2022

2021000149 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2022)

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. 14/656,903 03/13/2015 James W. Teetzel 100595 5477 25702 7590 01/26/2022 SCOTT C. RAND, ESQ. MCLANE MIDDLETON, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 900 ELM STREET, P.O. BOX 326 MANCHESTER, NH 03105-0326 EXAMINER CHIU, WESLEY JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2698 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2022 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): lindsay.millette@mclane.com patents.nh@mclane.com scott.rand@mclane.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES W. TEETZEL and GARY M. LEMIRE Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-28. Appeal Br. 1. Claims 3 and 7 are cancelled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed Mar. 13, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed Aug. 28, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Apr. 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 24, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appellant did not file a Reply Brief. 2 “Appellant” refers to “[A]pplicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. §1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Wilcox Industries Corp. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 2 II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a modular camera system for handheld, helmet, and weapon mounted use. Spec. 1 (Background). Figure 9, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 9 depicts camera system 100 configured for hand-held use. Camera system 100 includes main camera body 170 comprising housing shell 172 having four mounting surfaces 174a, 174b, 174c, and 174d. Housing shell 172 has front end (176) and rear end (178). Spec. 4:13-17. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal. Claim 1, with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A modular tactical camera system, comprising: a short wave infrared (SWIR) camera body having a first housing, the first housing having a rearward facing end, a forward facing end opposite the rearward facing end, and a plurality of mounting surfaces extending between the rearward Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 3 facing end and the forward facing end, the camera body being sized to be (a) held in a hand of a user; (b) mounted to a weapon associated with the user; and (c) mounted to a helmet worn on the user’s head; a photosensor mounted on the forward facing end of the camera body; a lens mount attached to the forward facing end of the camera body for removably attaching a lens assembly configured to direct SWIR photons from an area outside the camera body to the photosensor; a processor within the camera body operably coupled to the photosensor and configured to convert a signal received from the photosensor to a video signal; a display assembly configured to be removably attached to the rearward facing end of the camera body, the display assembly including a display screen configured to display the video signal received from the processor in human viewable form; and a set of mounting assemblies removably attachable to the first housing, including: a hand grip member having a gripping surface for using the camera in a hand-held mode; a weapon mount assembly configured for mounting the first housing to the weapon; and a helmet mount adapter configured for mounting the first housing to the helmet and to position the camera system in front of an eye of the user; wherein the hand grip member, weapon mount assembly, and helmet mount adapter are configured to interchangeably attach to a common mounting shoe fastener element on the first housing. Appeal Br. A-B (Claim App.) (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 4 III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3 Name Reference Date Adamski US 4,097,883 June 27, 1978 Masarik US 8,488,969 B1 July 16, 2013 Monroe US 2002/0180866 A1 Dec. 5, 2002 Teetzel US 2008/0170838 A1 July 17, 2008 Ramboyong US 2008/0296500 A1 Dec. 4, 2008 Kennedy US 2009/0091634 A1 Apr. 9, 2009 Celona US 2011/0239354 A1 Oct. 6, 2011 Karcher US 2012/0097741 A1 Apr. 26, 2012 Akiyama US 2013/0107101 A1 May 2, 2013 Benson US 2014/0110483 A1 Apr. 24, 2014 Collin US 2014/0137457 A1 May 22, 2014 Arbouzov US 2014/0240689 A1 Aug. 28, 2014 DiCarlo US 2014/0239138 A1 Aug. 28, 2014 Jannard US 2014/0270687 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Grasser US 2014/0341555 A1 Nov. 20, 2014 IV. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, and Akiyama. Final Act. 4-13. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 5 Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, and Monroe. Final Act. 13-14. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Monroe, and Grasser. Final Act. 14-16. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, and Grasser. Final Act. 16-17. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, and Celona. Final Act. 17-19. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, and Teetzel. Final Act. 19-20. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, and Masarik. Final Act. 20-21. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, and Collin. Final Act. 21-22. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, and Benson. Final Act. 22-23. Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 6 Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, and Arbouzov. Final Act. 23-24. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Arbouzov, and Karcher. Final Act. 24-25. Claims 5 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, and Jannard. Final Act. 25-27. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, and Adamski. Final Act. 27-28. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 13-31.4 Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.5 Final Act. 4-28; Ans. 3-50. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). 5 See ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 7 Appellant argues, regarding claim 1, that the cited prior art fails to disclose the recited camera body housing having a plurality of mounting surfaces extending between the rearward and forward ends of the camera body housing. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant specifically argues Ramboyong does not teach or suggest mounting surfaces. Id. As an initial matter, we note that the cited claim language must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure, as explained in Morris: [T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”). Our reviewing court states, “the proper . . . construction is not just the broadest construction, but rather the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Our reviewing court further states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In this case, Appellant’s Specification does not define the claim term “mounting not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 8 surface,” but provides a figure depicting four mounting surfaces 174a-174d. Spec. 5. See also Spec. 8, 9. The Examiner finds Ramboyong’s tapped hole 36 and fasteners 18 teach or at least suggest “a plurality of mounting surfaces extending between the rearward facing end and the forward facing end.” Final Act. 4. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion because Ramboyong’s tapped hole 36 (Final Act. 4, Ramboyong Fig. 1) and bottom of the center mounting surface 12, including the protruding surfaces for fasteners 18, (Final Act. 4, Ramboyong Fig. 2, Ans. 29-30) are multiple mounting surfaces positioned between the front and rear ends of the camera housing and at least suggest the disputed limitation “a plurality of mounting surfaces extending between the rearward facing end and the forward facing end.” Ans. 29-30 (emphasis added). Additionally, the Examiner finds the following: The surface of the bottom of the center housing 12 creating the square opening is considered to be a mounting surface since it the bottom surface is used to mount battery compartment 20. The empty space itself is not interpreted as the mounting surface. Further, the mounting surfaces that are the lengthwise sides (including the protruding surfaces used for Fasteners 18) of the surface of the bottom of the center housing 12 extends between the rearward facing end and the forward facing end. These bottom surfaces allow the battery compartment 20 to be mounted to the center housing 12. Figures 1A and 1B of Ramboyong et al. show the battery compartment mounted and Figure 2 shows the battery compartment 12 and its corresponding mounting surfaces (top surface of the battery compartment creating a square opening) unmounted. Therefore, the claim limitation “a plurality of mounting surfaces extending between the rearward facing end and the forward facing end” is taught by Ramboyong et al. Ans. 29-30. Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 9 However, Appellant does not file a Reply Brief to further rebut the Examiner’s specific findings regarding Ramboyong. Arguments not made are forfeited or waived. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Accordingly, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for representative independent claim 1. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, and Akiyama. Regarding the rejections of remaining dependent claims 2, 4-6, and 8-28, Appellant does not present substantive arguments. Appeal Br. 18-31. As such, claims 2, 4-6, and 8-28 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). VI. CONCLUSION On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-28. Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 10 VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-6, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 26, 28 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama 1, 2, 4-6, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 26, 28 8 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Monroe 8 9 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Monroe, Grasser 9 10, 11 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Grasser 10, 11 13, 14 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Celona 13, 14 17 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Teetzel 17 18 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Masarik 18 21 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Collin 21 22 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Benson 22 23 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Arbouzov 23 Appeal 2021-000149 Application 14/656,903 11 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 24 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Arbouzov, Karcher 24 5, 25 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Jannard 5, 25 27 103 Ramboyong, Kennedy, DiCarlo, Akiyama, Adamski 27 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4-6, 8- 28 VII. 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED