Ex Parte Kincaid

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13562020 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

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.
13/562,020 07/30/2012 Robert H. Kincaid 20110128-01 3120
22878 7590
Agilent Technologies, Inc.
Global IP Operations
5301 Stevens Creek Blvd
Santa Clara, CA 95051
EXAMINER
VU, KHOA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
IPOPS .LEGAL @ agilent.com
Agilentdocketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT H. KINCAID
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,0201
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, and 4—18, which are all the pending claims in the application.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Agilent Technologies,
Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 Claim 3 was canceled by amendment on July 18, 2014.
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to a chamber with an interior
compartment, augmented display, and a controller intended for isolating an
experimental setup from the environment external to the interior
compartment. Spec. 13. The augmented display is designed to allow a user
to view an image and see into the interior compartment. Id. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A chamber comprising:
an interior compartment that is separated from an external
environment adapted for personnel who monitor said interior
compartment;
a transparent augmented display positioned between said
interior compartment and said external environment that allows
a user in said external environment to view said interior
compartment through said transparent augmented display and an
image generated on said augmented display; and
a controller that generates said image, wherein said image
comprises information about a component within said interior
compartment, wherein said interior compartment comprises a
fume hood.
The Examiner s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nufer (US 2009/0180846 Al; Jul. 16, 2009) and
Borra (US 2013/0211583 Al; Aug. 15, 2013).
2
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
Claims 6, 7, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nufer, Borra, and Ebersole (US 2003/0003430 Al; Jan. 2,
2003).
Claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nufer, Borra, Ebersole, and Lee (US
2012/0105424 Al; May 3, 2012).
Claims 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nufer, Borra, Ebersole, Lee, and Pryor (US 2008/0129704
Al; Jun. 5,2008).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, and 4
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend the Examiner’s reason for
combining Borra with Nufer is insufficient. App. Br. 6—7. Specifically,
Appellants argue that adding Borra’s image to Nufer’s chamber wall would
not further enhance visual access to the chamber because the image would
only inhibit visual access, and would not improve the efficiency and safety
of using Nufer’s chamber. App. Br. 6. Appellants also contend Nufer and
Borra are not in the same field. App. Br. 6—7.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
has provided a motivation with rational underpinnings for combining Nufer
and Borra, namely providing a display with product information that may
not otherwise be visible from outside Nufer’s work cabinet is safer and more
efficient than opening the cabinet to physically access a product to discern
product information. See Ans. 20. Indeed, Nufer explains that manual
access to a work cabinet can expose a person involved in an activity, “for
3
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
example dealing with toxic or carcinogenic substances, to a high level of
mental stress for an unnecessarily long time.” Nufer, 110. Accordingly, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that gathering information on
chamber contents without accessing the chamber to inspect the contents
would improve efficiency and safety. Borra provides such a solution in the
form of a display that includes information on products inside a chamber,
e.g., a dispensing machine. Borra, Tflf 32, 79.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Nufer and
Borra are not analogous art. The test for analogous art is not whether two
references are analogous to each other, but whether the references are
analogous to the claimed invention. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness
determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed
invention.”). A reference is analogous if: (1) the reference “is from the
same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed”; or (2) the
reference “is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.” Id.
In this case, the fact that the Nufer and Borra published applications
have different classifications is not sufficient evidence to show they are not
within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. See In re Mlot-
Fijalkowski, 676 F.2d 666, 669 n.5 (CCPA 1982) (“Such classification
evidence, even when properly of record, is of limited value. . . . Such
evidence is inherently weak also, because considerations in forming a
classification system differ from those relating to a person of ordinary skill
seeking solution for a particular problem.”). As mentioned above, the test
for analogous art depends not on whether references are analogous to each
4
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
other, but whether the references are analogous to the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is drawn to a much broader field of endeavor than the distinct
classes identified by Appellants (see App. Br. 6—7)—to wit, “A chamber”
with “an interior compartment,” “a transparent augmented display,” and “a
controller.” Thus, the relevant field of endeavor encompasses more than just
a narrow class of the Patent Office classification system, and Appellants’
arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
Moreover, even if we agreed with Appellants that Borra is not within
the field of Appellants’ endeavor, Borra is reasonably pertinent to the
problem solved by Appellants’ application. Appellants’ Specification asserts
that isolation from experiments within a chamber is important due to the
potential for toxic fumes or dangerous experiment failures. Spec. 11. The
Specification also describes the need to monitor experiments in a chamber
and to collect and display information on such experiments. Spec. 12.
Accordingly, one problem addressed by Appellants’ claimed invention is
isolating a user from the contents of a chamber while allowing for the
collection and display of information related to the chamber contents.
Under the reasonably pertinent prong of the analogous art test, any art
that “logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering his problem” is analogous art. Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348 (quoting
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have looked not just to art relating to chambers housing
experimental setups, but to any art that provided an external display relating
to contents of a chamber. Further, “[i]f a reference disclosure has the same
purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem,
and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection.” Id.
5
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
Borra is such a reference because its purpose is to display information
related to products in an enclosed chamber, which is the same purpose as the
claimed invention. See Borra, 132.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2 and 4 not
specifically argued separately (see App. Br. 5-7), as unpatentable over Nufer
and Borra.
Claims 5 and 18
Appellants contend Borra fails to teach sensors in an interior
compartment for generating a display as recited in claims 5 and 18. App. Br.
7—8. Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Borra describes
sensors that sense the position of a user’s hands on the external part of the
glass of Borra’s dispensing machine. Borra, 119. However, sensors for
detecting hand positioning on the external part of a chamber do not display
“information generated by a plurality of sensors in said interior
compartment,” as recited in claim 5 (emphasis added), or “information from
sensors associated with components in said interior compartment,” as
recited in claim 18 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 5 and 18 as being unpatentable over Nufer and Borra.
Claims 6, 7, and 10
Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for claim 1, and
additionally contend Ebersole fails to teach “wherein said image comprises a
drawing of an experimental setup within said interior compartment,” as
recited in claim 6. App. Br. 8—9. Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error because we find the Examiner’s reliance on Ebersole to be
6
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
merely cumulative. That is, the Examiner’s findings regarding Nufer and
Borra suffice to meet the disputed claim limitation. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d
491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (“[T]he answer specified a rejection on Whitney in
view of Harth and if the board found it unnecessary to rely on Harth in
sustaining that rejection, as it appears to have done, that does not amount to
rejection on a new ground.”). Specifically, Nufer teaches an experimental
setup inside of a chamber (Nufer, 113) (“A work cabinet. . . with a work
chamber which serves to contain material being worked upon on a
temporary basis”), and Borra teaches a display that includes a drawing of a
product inside of a chamber. Borra, H 32, 79 (“a housing chamber . . . [and]
a display . . . interposed between the housing chamber and an external
environment”; “the display 8 reproduces at least a datum and/or an image
(for example relating to one or more products 5 contained in the store 4) and
exhibits”). Accordingly, the collective teachings of Nufer and Borra
disclose an image that “comprises a drawing of an experimental setup within
said interior compartment,” as recited in claim 6. Moreover, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments against combining Nufer and Borra as
discussed above with respect to claim 1.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 6, and dependent claims 7 and 10 not
specifically argued separately, as unpatentable over Nufer, Borra, and
Ebersole.
Claim 8
The Examiner finds Lee teaches “wherein said sensor comprises a
camera and said controller utilizes an image from said camera to identify
said component,” as recited in claim 8. Non-Final Act. 11. Appellants
7
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
contend that although Lee describes a display panel that includes a camera
input, there is no teaching of using a camera image to identify components
by a controller, as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 10. Appellants have
persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner cites Lee’s Figure 20 (Non-
Final Act. 11), which is a television that may include a camera 323. Lee,
1444; Fig. 20. Although Lee discloses that the camera input can be sent to a
controller (Lee, 1457), the Examiner has not shown that the controller uses
the input from Lee’s camera to identify any components.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 8 as being unpatentable over Nufer, Borra, Ebersole, and Lee.
Claim 9
Appellants contend the combination of Nufer, Borra, Ebersole, and
Lee fails to teach a tag associated with a component of an experimental
setup, as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 10. Appellants further contend there is
no factual basis for modifying the teachings of the references to include a tag
and tag reader. App. Br. 11.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Lee teaches “a
recognition unit operable to recognize a tag and the controller may be further
operable to read the recognized tag and control an image corresponding to
the read data to be displayed on the transparent display panel.” Lee, 126.
More specifically, Lee’s “recognition unit includes a tag recognition unit to
recognize tags and/or a code recognition unit to recognize a bar code or a
quick response (QR) code.” Lee, 1222. The recognition unit can, therefore,
“recognize a code printed on an article to be stored in the storage chamber of
the show case, wherein the controller may read the recognized code and
stores the read data.” Lee, 149. The data on articles stored in Lee’s
8
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
showcase is used to determine display images that correspond to the stored
articles. See Lee, Tflf 233—235. We find Lee’s “code printed on an article”
(Lee, 149) meets the claimed limitation of a “tag.” Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner that Lee teaches “wherein said one of said components
includes a tag identifying that component, said tag being read by said
controller.” Non-Final Act. 12. Whether the articles in Lee’s storage
chamber pertain to an experimental setup is not dispositive here because
Nufer teaches an experimental setup, as noted above with respect to claim 6.
Nufer, 113.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument against
modifying the references. The Examiner finds adding Fee’s recognition unit
to the combination of Nufer and Borra would “provide the potential easy
management of the displayed image (Fee, [0622]).” Ans. 26. Appellants
have not specifically explained why this rationale is insufficient.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in rejecting dependent claim 9 as unpatentable over Nufer, Borra,
Ebersole, and Fee.
Claims 11 and 12
The Examiner finds Ebersole describes capturing and overlaying a
camera video signal with computer graphics in a computer, and thus teaches
“wherein said controller transmits an image that would be seen through said
augmented display to a remote location at which said transparent augmented
display cannot be viewed,” as recited in claim 12. Non-Final Act. 14.
Appellants contend Ebersole’s computer is not “a remote location” to which
an image “seen through said augmented display” is transmitted because it is
9
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
the computer that generates the computer graphics image and transmits the
image to Ebersole’s head-mounted display (HMD). See App. Br. 11.
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Ebersole describes
an augmented reality firefighter training system where “[ijmagery from a
head-worn video camera 4 is mixed in video mixer 3 . . . with computer­
generated (CG) output.... The final image is displayed to a user in head-
mounted display (HMD) 5.” Ebersole, 159. As seen in Ebersole’s Figure 1,
computer-generated imagery is sent from a computer 1 to the video mixer 3
for mixing with output from the camera 4, and the result is sent to the HMD
5. Claim 12, however, recites transmitting an image “seen through said
augmented display to a remote location.” Ebersole’s computer cannot be the
claimed “remote location” because it generates imagery that is mixed and
sent to the HMD, i.e., an “augmented display,” and does not receive an
image “seen through said augmented display.” To the extent the Examiner
intends to rely on the output from Ebersole’s camera 4 as the claimed image
“seen through said augmented display,” the camera output signal is not such
an image. Rather, Ebersole’s HMD 5 presents an image “seen through said
augmented display,” not camera 4, and the Examiner has not shown the
HMD transmits an image to the computer 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 12, and claim 11 which depends from independent claim
6 and recites similar limitations to claim 12, as being unpatentable over
Nufer, Borra, Ebersole, and Lee.
Claim 13
The Examiner finds Pryor teaches the “controller determines a
direction in which a user is looking into said interior compartment and uses
10
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
said determined direction to identify a component in said interior
compartment,” as recited in claim 13. Non-Final Act. 16. Appellants
contend there is no teaching in Pryor of determining “a direction in which a
user is looking,” as recited in claim 13. Appellants have persuaded us of
Examiner error because we have reviewed the Examiner’s cited portions of
Pryor and have not found disclosure of the argued feature.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 13 as being unpatentable over Nufer, Borra, Ebersole, Lee, and Pryor.
Claims 14—17
The Examiner finds Pryor teaches “a camera that forms an infrared
image of said interior compartment,” as recited in claim 14. Non-Final 17.
Appellants contend Pryor fails to teach this limitation. App. Br. 13. We
agree with Appellants. Pryor discloses a data entry device that uses a touch
screen for detecting surface distortions caused by physical forces. Pryor,
111. The touch screen can be part of a projection TV or LCD device where
distortions due to deflection forces from a finger can be determined by a
camera with a view of the rear surface of the touch screen. Pryor, H 90,
110; Fig. 2. Pryor discloses a light source behind the touch screen can be an
infrared light source such as infrared LEDS. Pryor, 1110. The Examiner
has not shown, however, that Pryor’s infrared light source allows the camera
to form an infrared image of an interior compartment; rather, Pryor discloses
detecting force patterns on a touch screen. See Pryor, 190.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 14, and claims 15—17 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable
over Nufer, Borra, Ebersole, Lee, and Pryor.
11
Appeal 2017-006194
Application 13/562,020
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5, 8, and 11—18.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and
10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12