Yulun Wang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2019

11455161 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2019)

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.
11/455,161 06/15/2006 Yulun Wang P020 8979
98471 7590 12/31/2019
InTouch Health
C/O CPA Global
900 2nd Avenue South, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SELBY, GEVELL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2699
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2019 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):
clambrecht@intouchhealth.com
docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YULUN WANG, CHARLES S. JORDAN, and MARCO PINTER
____________________

Appeal 2018-004637
Application 11/455,161
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 10 through 16, which constitute all 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(a). According to Appellant, InTouch Technologies is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-004637
Application 11/455,161

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a remote robot system controlled by a
remote station (see Spec. 4:2–9). Claim 10 is illustrative of the invention
and is reproduced below.
10. A method for projecting a remotely captured image,
comprising:
capturing a robot image with a robot camera of a mobile
robot;
transmitting the robot image captured by the robot
camera to a remote control station used to control movement of
the mobile robot;
capturing a station image with a camera of the remote
station displaying the robot image and the station image on a
monitor of the remote control station;
projecting the image captured by the robot camera on a
flat screen an in a manner that allows an operator of the remote
control station to view the robot and station images displayed
by the remote control station monitor and the projected robot
image, wherein said flat screen is flat in both a vertical direction
and a horizontal direction;
transmitting the station image to the mobile robot; and,
displaying the station image on a screen of the mobile
robot.

EXAMINER’S REJECTION1
The Examiner rejected claims 10 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combined teachings or suggestions of Jouppi
(US 6,292,713 B1; issued Sept. 18, 2001) (hereinafter “Jouppi ’713”),

1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 6,
2017 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed March 26, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed October 6, 2016 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 26, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2018-004637
Application 11/455,161

3
Jouppi (US 2005/0192721 A1; published Sept. 1, 2005) (hereinafter “Jouppi
’721”) and Ivashin (US 2005/0264648 A1, published Dec. 1, 2005). Final
Act. 3–7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant’s argument asserts that the combination of “Jouppi ’713 in
view of Jouppi ’721 teaches away from projecting the robot image in such a
way that allows an operator of the remote control station to view both the
projected robot image and the robot image displayed by the remote control
station monitor.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues Jouppi ’713 teaches a
robot control system and, in the embodiment which makes use of projectors,
uses them in an “immersion room” which is a separate room from the remote
control station. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Jouppi ’713, Figs. 1, 28, and col. 3 ll.
12–37, col. 13, ll.56–58, and col. 16, ll. 40–50, 62–66), Reply Br. 2 (citing
Jouppi ’713, Fig. 28, col. 14, ll. 30–33). As such, Appellant asserts in Jouppi
’713, the user cannot view both the image that is projected and the image
displayed on the monitor. Further, Appellant argues that Jouppi ’721 also
teaches an immersive viewing environment for the user and that the user’s
computer transceiver is located outside the field of view of the user in the
immersive environment. Appeal Br. 9–10. Thus, Appellant asserts that
neither Jouppi reference discloses embodiments where the user station
monitor is in the same room as the projection screen and as such the Jouppi
references teach away from the limitation of projecting the robot image on a
Appeal 2018-004637
Application 11/455,161

4
flat screen that allows the operator to see both the projection and the images
on the remote control station as claimed. Appeal Br. 10–11, Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Jouppi ’713 teaches in the immersion room
embodiment that the projectors can project images from the robot and that
the computer system for the immersion room is the same as the user station.
Ans. 8 (citing Jouppi ’713, Fig. 28, col. 13, ll. 56–58, col. 14, ll. 40–50).
The Examiner identifies that in a prior appeal of this application, the panel
stated “the monitor included in the user station allows the operator of the
remote control station in the immersion room to view the robot image
displayed by the remote control station monitor 70 and the projected robot
image on the screen 522.” Ex. Parte Wang, Appeal 2011-004068, at 4.
(PTAB Aug. 13, 2013). Further, the Examiner identifies that Jouppi ’721
was only relied upon to teach the display screen is flat in both horizontal and
vertical directions, and the Ivashin reference is relied upon to teach the robot
control display includes composite views, the claimed robot image, and
station image. Ans. 7–8.
We have reviewed the cited teachings of the Jouppi references and are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection by Appellant’s teaching
away argument. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.’” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v.
Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting
Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)). A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a
general preference for an alternative invention from amongst options
Appeal 2018-004637
Application 11/455,161

5
available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit
or discourage investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here we do not find the teaching in
Jouppi ’713 of projectors in an immersion room separate from the control
station discourages the ability of the user to view both the control display
and the projected image. As identified by the Examiner, Jouppi ’713 teaches
the projectors are used in place of or in addition to the display of the control
station. Jouppi ’713, col. 16, ll. 64–66. Thus, Jouppi ’713, clearly does not
discourage an operation where the projection and the control display are
viewed concurrently. We additionally note that displays being in separate
rooms does not preclude, and thereby not discourage, the projected image
from being viewed along with the control display (e.g., an open door or a
window, as control rooms often have, may allow the user in the room with
the control station to see inside the immersion room with the projectors).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s teaching away
argument and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 10
and dependent claims 11 through 16, which were not separately addressed in
Appellant’s arguments.

Appeal 2018-004637
Application 11/455,161

6
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 through 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–16 103 Jouppi, Jouppi, Ivashin 10–16

AFFIRMED