Ex Parte BINDER

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 19, 2019

13658080 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/658,080 10/23/2012
131926 7590 06/19/2019
May Patents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov
P.O.B 7230
Ramat-Gan, 5217102
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yehuda BINDER
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BINDER-006-US4 3690
EXAMINER
BUKOWSKI, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2019 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 YEHUDA BINDER
Appeal2017-007583
Application 13/658,080
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-74, and 127-164. Final Act. 1. Claims
5, 18, 19, 22, 25, 75, and 126 were withdrawn from consideration. Id. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2017-007583
Application 13/658,080
CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellants, "the present invention relates generally to
devices (such as displays) controlled by face detection." Spec. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for signaling based on detecting an element in
an image, said apparatus comprising:
a digital camera for capturing the image in digital data
form·
'
an image processor coupled to receive the image in
digital data form from said digital camera, for applying an
element detection algorithm to detect the element in the
captured image; and
software and a processor to execute said software
coupled to control said image processor and said digital camera;
and a port for outputting a first signal coupled to said processor;
wherein said processor produces the first signal in
response to detecting the element in the image for at least a first
time period, followed by detecting the absence of the element in
the image for at least a second time period.
REFERENCES
Binder '152 US 2005/0163152 Al July 28, 2005
Cho US 2006/0067367 Al Mar. 30, 2006
Trovato US 2006/0071135 Al Apr. 6, 2006
Xu US 2007/0126884 Al June 7, 2007
Kitaura US 2007/0132725 Al June 14, 2007
Binder '202 US 2007/0173202 Al July 26, 2007
Mangiaracina US 2008/0197790 Al Aug. 21, 2008
Karam US 2008/0244284 Al Oct. 2, 2008
Wilf US 2011/0102570 Al May 5, 2011
2
Appeal2017-007583
Application 13/658,080
Njissang, Wireless HD Next Generation Standard Now Supports 3DTV,
HDCP 2.0, Data Applications and Data Rates in Excess of 10 Gbps,
www.wirelesshd.org.
REJECTIONS
Claims 127-164 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 4, 6-17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-36, and 74 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination ofWilf and Xu.
Final Act. 11-14.
Claims 2, 3, 37, 53, and 57-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Wilf, Xu, and Applicant
Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 14-15.
Claims 38-49 and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Wilf, Xu, Binder '202, and Applicant
Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 15-17.
Claims 50-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Wilf, Xu, Binder '202, Njissang, and Applicant
Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 17.
Claims 54-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Wilf, Xu, Binder '202, Cho, and Applicant
Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 18.
Claims 61-64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Wilf, Xu, Binder '15 2, and Applicant Admitted
Prior Art. Final Act. 18-19.
Claims 65-66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Wilf, Xu, Binder '15 2, Mangiaracina, and Applicant
Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 20.
3
Appeal2017-007583
Application 13/658,080
Claim 67 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Wilf, Xu, Binder, Karam, and Applicant Admitted
Prior Art. Final Act. 20-21.
Claims 68-69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Wilf, Xu, Binder '152, Mangiaracina, and Applicant
Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 21.
Claims 70-73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Wilf, Xu, Binder, Karam, and Applicant Admitted
Prior Art. Final Act. 21-22.
ANALYSIS
Having considered the positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellant in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner's rejections
for the reasons set forth in the Answer to the Appeal Brief and Final Office
Action appealed from, which we adopt as our own. We add the following
explanation primarily for emphasis.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Examiner finds that the Specification lacks written description
support for the limitation in claim 127 of "responding to the non-visible light
illumination level . . . wherein the illumination level of said screen is
controlled in response to the non-visible light illumination level sensed by
said light sensor." Final Act. 2; Claims Appendix. The Examiner finds "[a]t
best, Applicant's disclosed subject matter allows for non-visible light
sensors to detect an image or an object within the image ( consistent with
other claims), however, there is no mention of the ability to differentiate
between detected non-visible light illumination levels and how the
4
Appeal2017-007583
Application 13/658,080
respective levels are differentiated in order to control the illumination level
of said screen." Id. at 3 ( emphases omitted).
Appellant appears to dispute the latter finding, arguing that the
Specification discloses: a camera with an array of sensors that provide a
signal with a measured illumination level, a non-visible light sensor, and
analyzing a captured image composed of multiple pixels. Br. 7-10. Even if
we accept all those arguments, however, they would not support the disputed
limitation because Appellant's cites from the Specification do not reasonably
convey (explicitly, implicitly, or inherently) possession of the disputed
limitation. See Id.
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 12 7
reaches too broadly to cover subject matter that is not supported by the
written description of the Specification. Br. 6-7. Appellant argues that a
claim can be broad if has written description support. Id. That assertion,
however, is inapplicable here because, as discussed above, Appellant's cites
do not reasonably convey possession of the disputed limitation.
Appellant also argues that an applicant does not need to describe in
detail that which is well known if an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
Br. 11. This argument is also inapplicable because, as discussed above,
what Appellant cites as written description support does not reasonably
convey possession of the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and for the reasons set
forth by the Examiner, we sustain the written description rejection of claim
127 and its dependent claims (128-164).
5
Appeal2017-007583
Application 13/658,080
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant argues that Wilf does not disclose the limitation of claim 1
of "detecting the element in the image for at least a first time period." Br.
12-13. Appellant asserts that Wilf is silent about timing and time periods.
Id. at 13. The Examiner finds that Wilf discloses detection for pre-
determined time period in paragraph 141 (Ans. 4-5), which in pertinent part
discloses "PDE mode is activated in response to detecting a hand over the
keyboard and not receiving input from the keyboard for a pre-determined
period of time." Wilf,-J 141. We agree with this finding by the Examiner.
Paragraph 141 teaches or suggests a time period for detecting an element in
the image: in particular, the predetermined period of time that activates PDE
mode if no keyboard input is provided after detecting a hand. We also
accept, and Appellant has not challenged, the Examiner's finding that to
detect an element in an image a time period must occur. Ans. 4.
The Examiner addresses the other arguments Appellant made
regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. And as indicated above, we
agree with and adopt the Examiner's reasoning regarding those arguments.
For the reasons set forth above and by the Examiner, we sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-4, 6-17, 20, 21, 23, 24, and
26-74.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claims 127-164.
We affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-4, 6-17,
20, 21, 23, 24, and 26-74.
6
Appeal2017-007583
Application 13/658,080
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7