Chikashi Yajima

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 12, 2020

15146324 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 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.
15/146,324 05/04/2016 Chikashi YAJIMA 10178US02DIV 4352
154930 7590 03/12/2020
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
AYNALEM, NATHNAEL B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2020 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):
Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com
Sandy.Miles@Xsensus.com
anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHIKASHI YAJIMA
____________

Appeal 2018-006473
Application 15/146,324
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–6 and 9–20. Appeal Br. 2. An Oral Hearing was held on
February 20, 2020. A transcript of the hearing will be made of record in due
course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the
real party in interest as Sony Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-006473
Application 15/146,324

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to “photography using a
wearable terminal device and related control processing based on sensor
inputs.” Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A wearable terminal device comprising:
one or more sensors configured to output sensor data
corresponding to a physiological state of a user in possession of
the wearable terminal device;
a communication interface configured to
transmit the sensor data wirelessly to an information
processing apparatus remote from the wearable terminal
device; and
receive, wirelessly from the information processing
apparatus remote from the wearable terminal device,
information indicating the physiological state of the user
determined by the information processing apparatus based
on sensor data; and
circuitry configured to
determine a current position of the wearable
terminal device; and
control, based on the information indicating the
physiological state of the user and current position of the
wearable terminal device, a photographing interval of a
camera.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2018-006473
Application 15/146,324

3
The Applied References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability of the claims on appeal:
Crump US 2006/0202816 A1 Sept. 14, 2006
Sako US 2008/0062291 A1 Mar. 13, 2008
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1–6 and 9–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Sako and Crump. Final
Act. 4–7.
ANALYSIS2
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings that the combination of
Sako and Crump renders obvious claims 1–6 and 9–20. Appeal Br. 4–7;
Reply Br. 1–3. Appellant argues the appealed claims as a group. See
Appeal Br. 2 (“Claims 1, 9 and 15 recite parallel subject matter and therefore
stand or fall together.”). Thus, for purposes of our analysis, we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and any claim not argued
separately will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues:
Sako and Crump, even if combined, fail to disclose a wearable
that receives, wirelessly from the information processing
apparatus remote from the wearable terminal device,
information indicating the physiological state of the user

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered Appellant’s Appeal Brief
filed December 26, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed
June 5, 2018; the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 5, 2018 (“Ans.”); the
Final Office Action mailed July 27, 2017 (“Final Act.”); and Appellant’s
Specification filed May 4, 2016 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2018-006473
Application 15/146,324

4
determined by the information processing apparatus based on
sensor data transmitted from the wearable terminal device to the
information processing apparatus, as required by independent
claim 1.
Appeal Br. 5. We turn to the teachings of Sako and Crump.
Sako generally relates to “an image pickup apparatus that is mounted
on a user, for instance, with an eyeglass-type or head-worn mounting unit to
pick up an image while regarding the user’s gaze direction as the direction of
a subject,” as shown, for example, in Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below.
Sako ¶ 3, Figs. 1, 2.

Figures 1 and 2 of Sako depict typical external
views of image pickup apparatuses.
Sako ¶¶ 35–36. Sako discloses image pickup apparatus 1, 1A (i.e., a
“wearable terminal device”) with a pair of display sections 2 (for the right-
and left-hand eyes) positioned immediately before the eyes of a user or a
separate display device. Sako ¶¶ 62–63, 72, Figs. 1–2. Sako’s apparatus
includes user information acquisition components, such as visual sensor 19,
acceleration sensor 20, gyro 21, and biological sensor 22 (i.e., “one or more
sensors”), which detect and output, for example, (a) information about the
vision of the user like gaze direction, (b) motion of the user’s head, neck,
Appeal 2018-006473
Application 15/146,324

5
arm, leg, or entire body, and (c) biological information about the user like
heartbeat, pulse, perspiration, brain wave, body temperature, blood pressure,
or respiratory activity information (i.e., sensors “configured to output sensor
data corresponding to a physiological state of a user in possession of the
wearable terminal device”). Sako ¶¶ 121–124. These sensors “acquire the
information about the motion or physical status of the user who wears the
image pickup apparatus 1 (user information) and supply the acquired
information to the system controller 10” (i.e., “transmit the sensor data . . . to
an information processing apparatus”). Sako ¶ 125.
Sako also discloses that system controller 10 “performs a process by
exercising the user status judgment function 10a and determines the
intention or status of the user in accordance with the acquired user
information” (i.e., “receive, . . . from the information processing apparatus
. . . , information indicating the physiological state of the user determined by
the information processing apparatus based on sensor data”). Sako ¶ 126.
Based on the determined intention or status of the user, “system
controller 10 performs a process by exercising the operational control
function [10b] and exercises control over image pickup and display
operations” (i.e., “circuitry configured to . . . control, based on the
information indicating the physiological state of the user . . . , a
photographing interval of a camera”). Sako ¶ 126; see id. ¶¶ 86 (disclosing
“timing control function is also used to exercise variable control over the
imaging frame rate”), 121, 124–126.
In addition, Sako’s image pickup apparatus includes “a built-in
communication section [26] that transmits picked-up image data to an
external device” (i.e., “a communication interface”). Sako ¶ 75; see id.
Appeal 2018-006473
Application 15/146,324

6
¶¶ 114 (“The communication section 26 exchanges data with an external
device,” such as “a computer . . . [or] a server.”), 115 (“The communication
section 26 may be configured to establish network communication, for
instance, with a network access point via a short-distance wireless
communication link through the use of a wireless LAN, Bluetooth, or other
technology.”), 118 (“[T]he communication section 26 receives data from the
external device.”).
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner finds, and we agree (with a
clarification below), Sako discloses all limitations of claim 1 except:
(1) circuitry configured to determine a current position of the wearable
terminal device; and (2) a communication interface configured to transmit
the sensor data wirelessly to an information processing apparatus remote
from the wearable terminal device, and receive, wirelessly from the
information processing apparatus remote from the wearable terminal device,
information indicating the physiological state of the user determined by the
information processing apparatus based on sensor data. Final Act. 5.
However, to clarify the Examiner’s finding here, Sako does expressly
disclose transmitting sensor data to an information processing apparatus
(e.g., system controller 10) and receiving, from the information processing
apparatus, information indicating the physiological state of the user
determined by the information processing apparatus based on sensor data,
and doing so within a wired, integrated device. But, as identified by the
Examiner, Sako does not explicitly disclose splitting those activities among
two separate components, one remote from the other, and wirelessly
transmitting the relevant data between those separate components.
Appeal 2018-006473
Application 15/146,324

7
Nevertheless, the Examiner turns to Crump for these missing limitations.
Final Act. 5–6.
Crump generally relates to “a wearable monitor to collect data on a
patient and transmit the collected data to a centralized location with data
storage, analysis, reporting and notification.” Crump ¶ 2. Crump discloses
“a health care monitoring system,” including “a variety of components, such
as [wearable] monitor 102, gateway 106 and server 110,” which “may
transmit data to each other and receive data from each other through any of
a variety of wireless transmission protocols.” Crump ¶ 24 (emphases
added), Fig. 1; see id. ¶ 26 (“Server 110 may communicate with gateway
106 over network 130 to both send and receive data.”). Crump further
discloses wearable monitor 102 “can use wireless networking components in
order to send vital sign data, location information and medical emergency
alerts,” as well as “for transmitting and receiving data wirelessly” (i.e., a
communication interface configured to transmit the sensor data wirelessly to
an information processing apparatus remote from the wearable terminal
device; and receive, wirelessly from the information processing apparatus
remote from the wearable terminal device, [various data]”). Crump ¶ 39
(emphases added). In addition, Crump discloses “monitor 102 can
incorporate GPS locating capability to provide detailed location information
of the wearer” (i.e., “circuitry configured to determine a current position of
the wearable terminal device”). Crump ¶ 39.
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Crump
discloses “circuitry configured to determine a current position of the
wearable terminal device,” and a communication interface configured to
transmit the sensor data wirelessly to an information processing apparatus
Appeal 2018-006473
Application 15/146,324

8
remote from the wearable terminal device, and receive, wirelessly from the
information processing apparatus remote from the wearable terminal device,
various data. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious over the combined teachings of Sako and Crump to (1) sense
device position data, and (2) separate Sako’s wired, integrated transmitting,
analyzing, and receiving of sensor data, and instead wirelessly transmit the
sensor data to a remote component for analysis, and wirelessly receive back
analyzed data. See Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant argues “[a]t no point, however, does Crump teach or
suggest that the server 110 provides a result of any of the processing or
interpreting to the wearable terminal 102.” Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 1–3.
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive, as discussed below.
First, Appellant attacks Crump individually, rather than meaningfully
addressing the merits of the combined teachings of Sako and Crump. See
Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 1–3. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a
combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, the essence of Appellant’s patentability argument is that the
invention of independent claim 1 introduces wireless communication to
separate the wired, integrated components of Sako. On the one hand, the
prior art—Sako—discloses a wired, integrated device that transmits sensor
data to an internal information processing apparatus (e.g., system
controller 10) for analysis and receives back analyzed data; whereas on the
other hand, the invention of claim 1 makes the information processing
apparatus a separate, remote component, and wirelessly transmits the sensor
Appeal 2018-006473
Application 15/146,324

9
data to that remote apparatus and wirelessly receives back analyzed data.
But, as noted by the Examiner (Final Act. 5–6), Sako discloses sensors
integrated with a processing apparatus, and Crump teaches a split system
(sensors separate from a remote processing apparatus), with wireless
communication between them.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that it would not have
been obvious to a skilled artisan to make Sako’s system controller a remote
unit and communicate with it wirelessly like in Crump, particularly where
Sako itself discloses communication section 26 for wireless communication,
as discussed above (Sako ¶¶ 75, 114, 115, 118). See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d
522, 523 (CCPA 1961). In Dulberg, the claimed structure, a lipstick holder
with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior
art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. Id. The
court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain
access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it
would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.” Id. In this
case, if it were considered desirable for any reason to have Sako’s system
controller separate from its image pickup apparatus (or wearable device),
like unit cost or ease of update, then Crump teaches it would have been
obvious to make the system controller remote with wireless communication
for that purpose.
Based on the foregoing, we find Appellant does not show persuasively
that the Examiner erred in finding independent claim 1 obvious over Sako
and Crump.3

3 In the Final Action, although the Examiner rejects all pending claims as
obvious over Sako and Crump, the Examiner does not expressly base
Appeal 2018-006473
Application 15/146,324

10
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claims 9 and 15,
and claims 2–6, 10–14, and 16–20 which depend therefrom, none of which
were argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9–20 103 Sako, Crump 1–6, 9–20
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

obviousness on an “obvious to try” rationale (see MPEP § 2143(I)(E)).
In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider the
applicability of an “obvious to try” rationale to the claimed invention, as
well as other rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness. See
generally MPEP § 2143(I)(A–G). Although the Board is authorized to reject
claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the
Board elects not to do so. See MPEP § 1213.02.