Ex Parte LyrenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 19, 201814823559 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/823,559 08/11/2015 64021 7590 PHILIP S. L YREN, PC 289 Woodland A venue Wadsworth, OH 44281 11/20/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Philip Lyren 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. PSL-032 1611 EXAMINER BRIER, JEFFERY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2018 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 PHILIP L YREN Appeal2018-005124 Application 14/823,559 1 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Four Mile Bay LLC. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-005124 Application 14/823,559 INVENTION Appellant's application relates to determining information about a target and recommending a target based on the information. Abstr. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method, comprising: collecting, with multiple electronic glasses worn by multiple users at a geographical location, target information about people with firearms that are dispersed at the geographical location; determining, by an electronic device, factors that influence assignment of each of the users to one of the people with firearms in which the factors include a distance from each of the users to each of the people with firearms; determining, by the electronic device and based on the target information, a score for each of the factors with respect to each of the users for each of the people with firearms; assigning, by the electronic device and based on the score for each of the factors with respect to each of the users, each of the users to a different one of the people with firearms; and displaying, through the multiple electronic glasses of each user, a three dimensional (3D) image of a person that represents a person assigned to a user such that the 3 D image of the person is displayed in a field of view of the user where the person assigned to the user is actually located in the geographical location, wherein the users and the user are people. REJECTION Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written description. Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found "the claims do not claim" and the Specification does not describe "how the wearer of the electronic 2 Appeal2018-005124 Application 14/823,559 glasses is verified such that the person assigned to a user has information correctly displayed to the assigned user via the electronic glasses the user is wearing." Final Act. 7. Thus, the Examiner found the two "determining" steps, as well as the "assigning and "displaying steps, of claim 1 lack written description. Final Act. 6-7. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the rejection does not focus on claim terms actually recited in the claims. App. Br. 11. Appellant argues claim 1 does not recite that the wearer of the electronic glasses is verified. Id. Appellant points to specific sections of the Specification as written description support for the claims as written and argues these provide numerous examples of people. App. Br. 12. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner found insufficient written description of how a user is identified, concluding that identifying the electronic glasses does not identify the wearer of those glasses. See Ans. 10. However, the Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation or reasoning as to why the cited portions of the Specification fail to support recited subject matter. Rather, the Examiner's rejection appears to be based on the Examiner's finding that "it is very important for the displaying a representation of a person be to the correct user and not to any wearer of the electronic glasses." See Ans. 9. The plain language of the claims, however, does not require any determination of a "correct user." For these reasons, on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred, 2 and we reverse the written description rejection under 2 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider whether the claimed subject matter is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, without significantly more. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b), no inference 3 Appeal2018-005124 Application 14/823,559 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of independent claims 1, 9 and 16, and claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20, dependent thereon. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. REVERSED should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 1213.02 (9th ed., rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation