Ex Parte Lyren

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2018

14823559 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2018)

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