Byung J. Chang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2019

15167018 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 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.
15/167,018 05/27/2016 Byung J. Chang GSC-08802/03 6400
131270 7590 07/16/2019
BELZER PC
ATTN: John G. Posa
2905 Bull Street
Savannah, GA 31405
EXAMINER
GIRMA, FEKADESELASS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BYUNG J. CHANG
____________________

Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,0181
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–18, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2

1 Appellant identifies the inventor, Byung J. Chang, as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”), filed May 27, 2016; the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed October 6, 2017; the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”), filed May 14, 2018; the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed
June 12, 2018; and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed August 13, 2018.
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

2

CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a neck posture monitoring device that
“senses head tilt and informs the user so as to avoid neck strain” and back
strain. (Spec. ¶ 1; Abstract.) Appellant’s device uses “a sensor that detects
when a wearer of the device tilt their head at an angle equal to or greater
than the particular forward head tilt angle,” and “may inform the user via
various audio/visual alarms, and my sound based upon angle, duration, or
both.” (Spec. ¶¶ 9–10; Abstract.)
Independent claim, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A neck posture monitoring device, comprising:
a housing physically coupled to a wearer’s head such that
the housing moves in a manner corresponding to front-to-back
head tilt movements made by the wearer;
a memory disposed in the housing for storing information
corresponding to a specific, predetermined forward head tilt
angle measured relative to a horizontal reference; and
a sensor disposed in the housing that detects the front-to-
back head tilt movements made by the wearer; and
electronic circuitry disposed in the housing operative to (a)
compare the front-to-back head tilt movements made by the
wearer to the stored specific, predetermined forward head tilt
angle, and (b) perform a function when the wearer tilts their head
at an angle equal to or greater than the stored particular forward
head tilt angle.
(App. Br. 8–10 (Claims App.).)

REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1–6, 8, 9, 13, and 15–17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sahiholnasab et al. (US
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

3

2016/0140826 A1, published May 19, 2016 (“Sahiholnasab”) (Final Act. 2–
8.)
(2) Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sahiholnasab and Bilous (US 2011/0091850 A1,
published Apr. 21, 2011). (Final Act. 8.)
(3) Claims 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sahiholnasab and Johns et al. (US 2011/0121976 A1,
published May 26, 2011 (“Johns”) (Final Act. 9–10.)
(4) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sahiholnasab and Katzman et al. (US 2013/0042489 A1,
published Feb. 21, 2013 (“Katzman”) (Final Act. 10–11.)

ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 4–6, 8, and 15–17
With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends Sahiholnasab does not
teach or suggest “a memory disposed in the housing [physically coupled to a
wearer’s head] for storing information corresponding to a specific,
predetermined forward head tilt angle measured relative to a horizontal
reference,” as claimed. (App. Br. 2–3.) Particularly, Appellant argues “in
Appellant’s claimed invention, the memory is in the device coupled to a
user’s head” while “in Sahiholnasab, the data storage unit is remote.” (App.
Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 2–3.) Appellant also argues “there is no evidence
or disclosure of any specific, predetermined forward head tilt angle” being
stored in Sahiholnasab. (App. Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 2–3.) Appellant
further argues “Sahiholnasab also fails to teach or suggest the storage of a
specific, predetermined forward head tilt angle for comparison purposes,”
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

4

i.e., to “compare the front-to-back head tilt movements made by the wearer
to the stored specific, predetermined forward head tilt angle” and “perform a
function when the wearer tilts their head at an angle equal to or greater than
the stored particular forward head tilt angle” as recited in claim 1. (Reply
Br. 1, 3; see also App. Br. 3–4.) We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. (Ans.
4–10.) Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Sahiholnasab teaches a
memory disposed in a housing physically coupled to the user’s head, as
required by claim 1. (Ans. 4, 6 (citing Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 12, 45, 54); Final
Act. 3.) That is, although Sahiholnasab describes a “separate data storage
unit 504,” Sahiholnasab also describes “another embodiment, [in which] the
data is stored and/or analyzed directly by components located on the
wearable component,” where the “wearable component may include, for
example . . . a set of glasses . . . and/or any other wearable item which would
be practically useful in measuring a user’s posture, head or back position,
direction of gaze.” (See Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 12, 41, 45 (emphasis added), Fig.
9.) Sahiholnasab also provides the “wearable device may . . . be fitted with a
storage unit configured to record any data collected by the various sensors
provided on the wearable component. . . . [t]he storage unit may be a
physical device.” (See Sahiholnasab ¶ 54 (emphasis added).) Thus,
Sahiholnasab teaches the claimed memory disposed in a housing physically
coupled to the wearer’s head.
Additionally, Sahiholnasab’s memory stores “information
corresponding to a specific, predetermined forward head tilt angle measured
relative to a horizontal reference” as recited in claim 1, as Sahiholnasab’s
memory is “configured to record any data collected by the various sensors
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

5

provided on the wearable component”—including data representing a
predetermined forward head tilt angle measured relative to a horizontal
reference. (See Sahiholnasab ¶ 54 (emphasis added); see also Sahiholnasab
¶¶ 35–37, 64 (discussing a “tilt angle of the head, with an angle
measurement of zero degrees being considered ‘normal’ (a person looking
straight forward)”), 66 (“checking the monitored condition for compliance
with a predetermined threshold, e.g., a tilt angle within a given degree range
measurement”), 69 (discussing “a tilt sensor installed on the wearable
component to provide data approximating the angle of gaze of the user, the
sensor . . . may monitor the tilt angle of the wearable device corresponding
to the angle of gaze of the user”), 70 (monitoring a user’s head tilt using “a
predetermined acceptable, e.g., tilt angle value” and “a predetermined
maximum deflection down from horizontal”); Ans. 4, 6, 9–10 (citing
Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 54, 64, 66, 69); Final Act. 3 (citing Sahiholnasab ¶ 35).)
Thus, Sahiholnasab teaches the claimed “predetermined forward head
tilt angle measured relative to a horizontal reference” used to monitor a
user’s head tilt.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Sahiholnasab
“fails to teach or suggest the storage of a specific, predetermined forward
head tilt angle for comparison purposes” as required by claim 1. (Reply Br.
3; App. Br. 3.) Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s
specific findings that Sahiholnasab’s paragraphs 66 and 69 teach storage of a
specific, predetermined forward head tilt angle for comparison purposes.
(Ans. 4–5, 9–10 (citing Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 66, 69).) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings. Sahiholnasab’s tilt monitoring device “check[s] the
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

6

monitored condition for compliance with a predetermined threshold, e.g., a
tilt angle within a given degree range measurement,” and
assess[es] if the user is exhibiting correct posture, based on a
given sensor. For example, if the sensor is a tilt sensor installed
on the wearable component to provide data approximating the
angle of gaze of the user, the sensor . . . may monitor the tilt angle
of the wearable device corresponding to the angle of gaze of the
user. Such a tilt sensor may monitor at least two axes of a
reference plane for tilting. A tilt sensor may also be supplied
which is able to measure full motion in at least three axes.
(See Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 66, 69 (emphases added).) Further, Sahiholnasab’s
paragraph 70 (cited by the Examiner with respect to dependent claims 2 and
3; see Ans. 12–13) provides that:
the wearable component may be a frame similar to that provided
for eyeglasses. . . . the frame is fitted with a sensor. Such a sensor
may measure a tilt angle from the horizontal axis. The system
compares the information about, e.g., tilt, collected by the sensor
with a predetermined acceptable, e.g., tilt angle value. . . . If the
observed value falls within a predetermined acceptable range for
the observed sensor value, in this case, a tilt angle from zero to
thirty degrees below horizontal, the system continues to operate
the electronic device as normal. However, if the observed value
falls outside the predetermined acceptable range for the observed
sensor value, e.g., a tilt angle greater than a predetermined
maximum deflection down from horizontal, the system follows
a . . . feedback loop of issuing warnings or alarms.
(See Sahiholnasab ¶ 70 (emphasis added).)
Thus, Sahiholnasab teaches electronic circuitry operative to “compare
the front-to-back head tilt movements made by the wearer” to a “stored
specific, predetermined forward head tilt angle,” as recited in claim 1. (Ans.
8–10.) Sahiholnasab’s electronic circuitry also “perform[s] a function when
the wearer tilts their head at an angle equal to or greater than the stored
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

7

particular forward head tilt angle,” as recited in claim 1. (Ans. 5–6 (citing
Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 42–43); Final Act. 3–4 (citing Sahiholnasab ¶ 64).)
Thus, Appellant has failed to clearly distinguish the claimed invention
over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We therefore sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 1. No separate arguments
are presented for dependent claims 4–6, 8, and 15–17. (App. Br. 2.)
Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to independent claim 1, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4–6, 8, and 15–17. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).

§ 103 Rejection of Claims 2 and 3
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites “the specific,
predetermined forward head tilt angle is between 5 and 35 degrees.” Claim
3 depends from claim 1, and further recites “the specific, predetermined
forward head tilt angle is substantially 20 degrees.”
Appellant contends “the Examiner’s reliance on discovering the
optimum or workable ranges [in Sahiholnasab] is misplaced” because
“Sahiholnasab is simply checking to see whether the device is on or being
used” and “no specific angles would be relevant to this aspect of
Sahiholnasab.” (App. Br. 4–5 (citing Sahiholnasab ¶ 66).) In contrast,
“Appellant’s claimed ranges are specifically select[ed] to reduce fatigue and
neck strain i[n] particular industries.” (App. Br. 5.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, as they do not address the
Examiner’s findings that Sahiholnasab’s paragraphs 66, 69, and 70 teach and
suggest the limitations of claims 2 and 3. (Ans. 11–13 (citing Sahiholnasab
¶¶ 66, 69–70).) We agree with the Examiner’s findings. As discussed supra
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

8

with respect to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that Sahiholnasab
teaches a “specific, predetermined forward head tilt angle” as claimed.
Additionally, Sahiholnasab assesses if the user is exhibiting correct posture
based on a tilt sensor sensing “the tilt angle of the wearable device
corresponding to the angle of gaze of the user,” “compares the information
about, e.g., tilt, collected by the sensor with a predetermined acceptable, e.g.,
tilt angle value,” and “[i]f the observed value falls within a predetermined
acceptable range for the observed sensor value, in this case, a tilt angle from
zero to thirty degrees below horizontal, the system continues to operate the
electronic device as normal.” (See Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 69–70 (emphasis
added).) Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that tilt angles are
not relevant to Sahiholnasab because “Sahiholnasab is simply checking to
see whether the device is on or being used.” (See App. Br. 4–5.) Rather,
Sahiholnasab’s tilt angle from zero to thirty degrees (considered normal, i.e.,
providing good posture) teaches and suggests a predetermined forward head
tilt angle “between 5 and 35 degrees” (as recited in claim 2) and
“substantially 20 degrees” (as recited in claim 3) is used to monitor posture.
(Ans. 13; see Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 36–37 (describing good posture vs. poor
posture).)
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 2 and 3. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 3.

§ 103 Rejection of Claims 9 and 13
Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and further recites the housing is “an
on-ear or in-ear housing.” Appellant contends “Sahiholnasab simply does
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

9

not disclose this [feature] in Fig. 9 or elsewhere.” (App. Br. 5.) Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive as it does not address the Examiner’s specific
findings that Sahiholnasab’s paragraph 75 and Figure 9 teach an on-ear
housing (items 904, 905 in Figure 9). (Ans. 13–14 (citing Sahiholnasab
¶ 75, Fig. 9).) Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 9, and we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
Claim 13 depends from claim 1, and further recites “an input for
receiving information corresponding to a head neutral position.” Appellant
argues “Sahiholnasab does not disclose this, and the Examiner’s arguments
are again off-point” because the description in Sahiholnasab’s paragraph 36
“is not equivalent to an input.” (App. Br. 5.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because
Sahiholnasab’s paragraphs 36 and 38 and Figures 1 and 3(a) describe the
importance of good posture as measured by gaze angle, and Sahiholnasab’s
paragraphs 69 and 70 disclose tilt sensors receiving tilt angle information
indicating a user’s gaze angle being in a normal range of “zero to thirty
degrees” (as discussed supra with respect to claims 1–3). (See Sahiholnasab
¶¶ 36, 38, 69–70, Figs. 1 and 3(a); Ans. 9, 12, 14–15.) Thus, Sahiholnasab
teaches an input (Sahiholnasab’s sensors) for receiving information
corresponding to a head neutral position (e.g., a head position corresponding
to good posture). (Ans. 14–15; Final Act. 6–7.)
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 13. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.

Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

10

§ 103 Rejection of Claims 7 and 14
Claim 7 depends from claims 6, 4, and 1, and further recites “the
transducer [for generating an audible alarm, per claim 6] forms part of an
earphone or earbud.” Appellant contends “it would not have been obvious
. . .to incorporate the vision application training device of Bilous into
Sahiholnasab in order to preventing head tilting” because “Sahiholnasab has
no[]thing to do with vision application training” and already “prevents head
tilting in environments where it is appropriate.” (App. Br. 5.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. As recognized by the
Examiner, Sahiholnasab discloses a transducer for generating an audible
alarm (as required by claim 6, from which claim 7 depends), and Bilous
discloses that a transducer may be part of an earphone’s housing. (Ans. 15
(citing Bilous ¶ 15); Final Act. 6, 8 (citing Sahiholnasab ¶ 52).) We agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to
include a transducer in an earphone fastened to the user’s ear, in order to
prevent head tilting while the user moves (e.g., during sports training). (See
Bilous ¶¶ 2, 15; Ans. 15.) Sahiholnasab’s prevention of head tilting does not
preclude an additional advantage (offered by Bilous’s transducer fastened to
the user’s ear) of preventing head tilting while the user moves.
As Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claim 7.
Claim 14 depends from claim 1, and further recites “an electronic
level that operates in conjunction with the sensor to determine when a
wearer of the device tilt their head at an angle equal to or greater than the
specific, predetermined forward head tilt angle.” Appellant contends
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

11

“[a]lthough Bilous discusses a digital level sensor, there is no disclosure
regarding a level operating in conjunction with a sensor to determine when a
wearer tilts their head at an angle equal to or greater to a specific,
predetermined forward head tilt angle,” and the Examiner has not “presented
any arguments regarding a proposed combination with Sahiholnasab.”
(App. Br. 6.)
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because, as the Examiner
finds, (i) Sahiholnasab already teaches a system for sensing tilt angles and
determining when a wearer of the device tilt their head at an angle equal to
or greater than a predetermined forward head tilt angle (as discussed supra
with respect to claims 1–3), and (ii) Bilous teaches that a head tilt
determination can be performed by an electronic level that operates in
conjunction with a sensor. (Ans. 9, 12–13, 16 (citing Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 66,
69–70; Bilous ¶ 54).) Particularly, paragraph 54 of Bilous teaches a “Tilt
Activation Mechanism” that is a “digital level sensor . . . mounted within the
housing such that the tilt alarm system is activated when a predetermined tilt
angle from horizontal is detected.” (See Bilous ¶ 54.) We agree with the
Examiner that Bilous teaches the claimed electronic level operating in
conjunction with a sensor. Appellant has not explained why Bilous’s digital
level sensor—that senses a tilt angle and activates a tilt alarm system—
would be dissimilar from the “electronic level that operates in conjunction
with the sensor” recited in claim 14.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 14. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.

Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

12

§ 103 Rejection of Claims 10–12
Claim 10 depends from claim 1, and further recites “a real-time clock
for determining date and time” and “a memory for recording a wearer’s head
tilt angle as a function of time.” Appellant contends Johns does not teach
the limitations of claim 10. (App. Br. 6.) Appellant also argues “[i]t would
not have been obvious to incorporate the alertness sensing device of Johns
into Sahiholnasab” because “Sahiholnasab is unrelated to alertness sensing”
(e.g., as described by Johns), and “Sahiholnasab has nothing to do with
‘drivers’ or detecting if a vehicle is in motion or whether the head is tilted
[in a] vertical plane.” (Id.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because, as the Examiner
finds, Johns uses a real-time clock for determining date and time as shown in
Figure 2. (Final Act. 9 (citing Johns ¶ 57, Fig. 2); Ans. 17.) Additionally,
Johns’ device (a head worn device similar to eyeglasses, for monitoring
alertness and attention) “collects data from an accelerometer worn by the
driver to detect if the vehicle is in motion and whether the head is tilted [in
a] vertical plane.” (Ans. 17; see Johns Abstract (the head worn device
“collects data from an accelerometer worn by the driver to detect if the
vehicle is in motion and whether the head is tilted [in a] vertical plane,” the
head worn device including sensors such as the “accelerometer [motion
sensor] to provide data that allows the head position to be analysed and to
determine the direction of gaze” and including “data storage means for
storing data from said sensors”), Figs. 2–4 (showing data collected by the
accelerometer).) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Johns teaches “a
real-time clock for determining date and time” and “a memory for recording
a wearer’s head tilt angle as a function of time,” as recited in claim 10.
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

13

The Examiner has also articulated sufficient reasoning for
incorporating the alertness sensing device of Johns into Sahiholnasab—“to
promote safety of a driver by collecting data that allows the head position to
be analyzed and to determine the direction of gaze.” (Ans. 17.) Appellant’s
arguments against the Examiner’s combination (i.e., that “Sahiholnasab is
unrelated to alertness sensing” and to detecting “whether the head is tilted
[in a] vertical plane,” see App. Br. 6) are not persuasive because
Sahiholnasab detects head tilt to alert a user to poor posture and slumping
movements. (See Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 2, 34, 36–38, 69–70, Figs. 1 and 2(a).)
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 10. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10, and further recites “an alarm that is
activated when the wearer meets or exceeds the particular forward head tilt
angle a specific number of times over a specific period of time.” Appellant
contends Johns does not teach the limitations of claim 11. (App. Br. 6.)
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Initially, we note Johns’
paragraphs 22 and 44 (cited by the Examiner) teach an alarm is activated
when the wearer meets or exceeds a head tilt angle (“a wearer’s head was
directed away from the straight ahead position,” see Johns ¶ 44) one
continuous time over a specific period of time (“a given period of time,” see
Johns ¶ 44). (See Johns ¶¶ 22, 44; Final Act. 9–10.) Additionally,
Sahiholnasab discloses an alarm activates to provide more intense warnings
(“[t]he second level warnings may become more intense” and “[i]f second
level warnings are likewise ignored, the system may escalate to third and
additional level warnings”) when a wearer exhibits poor posture a specific
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

14

number of times over a specific period of time (e.g., twice or thrice over
predetermined amounts of time). (See Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 60, 62–63.) For
example, Sahiholnasab’s device may warn a user that he or she is exhibiting
poor posture (when the user’s head tilt angle meets or exceeds a particular
angle) a specific number of times over a specific period of time, such that
the user may receive “a predetermined number of warnings, W, during the
first X, e.g., 60, minutes of playing time [on an electronic device].” (See
Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 62–63.) Thus, Sahiholnasab also suggests “an alarm that is
activated when the wearer meets or exceeds the particular forward head tilt
angle a specific number of times over a specific period of time” as recited in
claim 11.
As Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claim 11.
Claim 12 depends from claim 10, and further recites “an alarm that is
activated when the wearer meets or exceeds the specific, predetermined
forward head tilt angle for a particular duration of time.” Appellant
contends Johns does not teach the limitation of claim 12 because
“[p]aragraphs [0044], [0022] of Johns [cited by the Examiner] relate to the
attention of a driver and not to forward head tilt angles.” (App. Br. 6.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because Johns’ paragraph
22 does discuss detecting “whether the head is tilted [in a] vertical plane”
and “if the duration of downward gaze is greater than a predetermined
minimum period and the vehicle is in motion, an alarm is triggered because
the driver is inattentive” (see Johns ¶ 22), thereby teaching and suggesting
the claimed alarm activated “when the wearer meets or exceeds the specific,
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

15

predetermined forward head tilt angle for a particular duration of time.”
(Final Act. 10 (citing Johns ¶ 22).) Appellant argues Johns’ paragraph 22
does not relate to “forward head tilt angles” (see App. Br. 6), however,
John’s detection of downward gaze is performed by monitoring forward
head tilt angles. (See Johns ¶¶ 14 (an “accelerometer can provide data that
allows the head position to be analysed and to assist in assessing the
direction of gaze”), 21 (“head position may indicate that the subject is not
looking in the appropriate direction or that the amount of time spent looking
in a particular direction is too long”), 31 (“Due to the fixed position of the
glasses on the wearers[sic] head, the accelerometer gives an indication of
head position in relation to that when looking straight ahead (e.g., at the road
ahead when driving)”).)
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 12. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 12.

§ 103 Rejection of Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 1, and further recites the device of
claim 1 is “configured as a self-contained battery operated device.”
Appellant contends Sahiholnasab’s posture monitoring device does not teach
a device having “the memory, the sensor and the electronic circuitry
disposed in the housing” as claimed, and it would also not be obvious to
include a battery (from Katzman’s device for measuring pantoscopic tilt) to
power Sahiholnasab’s device. (App. Br. 7.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because Sahiholnasab
teaches a self-contained neck posture monitoring device comprising a
Appeal 2018-008367
Application 15/167,018

16

memory, sensor, and electronic circuitry disposed in a housing, as discussed
supra with respect to claim 1. (See Sahiholnasab ¶¶ 42, 45, 75, Fig. 9.)
As further recognized by the Examiner, Katzman teaches it was well
known to include a battery in a device for powering the device. (Final Act.
10 (citing Katzman ¶ 16); Ans. 19.)3 Additionally, Sahiholnasab’s self-
contained posture monitoring device shown in Figure 9 is an electronic
device (thus requiring electrical energy) lacking external electrical
connections/wires (see Figure 9), which also suggests a battery may be used
to operate that electronic device. (See Sahiholnasab Abstract, Fig. 9.)
We therefore agree with the Examiner the combination of
Sahiholnasab and Katzman teaches the “self-contained battery operated
device” recited in claim 18. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claim 18.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1–18 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

3 Bilous, too, evidences that battery use in a device to operate the device is
conventional technology known to the skilled artisan. (See Bilous ¶ 15 (“a
vision applications training device to assist a user in preventing head tilting
. . . comprises: a main housing . . . a speaking tilt alarm system contained
within the main housing that includes a battery”).)