Ex Parte Naaman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2018

13573247 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2018)

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.
13/573,247 03/27/2011 Laith Naaman NAAM-002 6678
138718 7590
Polsinelli LLP
3 Embarcadero Center
Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111
03/16/2018 EXAMINER
MIKELS, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2876
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2018 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):
uspt@polsinelli.com
sfpatent@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAITH NAAMAN
Appeal 2017-008454
Application 13/573,247
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—8.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Appellant identifies Laith Naaman, the sole inventor, as the real party
in interest. Appeal Brief filed on March 14, 2016, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,”
3.
2 Appeal Br. 7—13; Reply Brief filed on September 26, 2016, hereinafter
“Reply Br.,” 3—9; Non-Final Office Action (notice emailed on November 25,
2015) hereinafter “Final Act.,” 2-A; Examiner’s Answer (notice emailed on
July 25, 2016), hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—7.
Appeal 2017-008454
Application 13/573,247
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal “relates generally to assistive technology
for people who have a full or complicated medication schedule.”
Specification filed on March 27, 2011, hereinafter “Spec.,” 1,11. 6—7.
Specifically, the inventor states there are systems to remind individuals
when to take their medication based upon information manually entered into
the systems. Id. 1:7—11. The inventor states such manual entry is not
always possible, such as in the case of a person with visual impairment. Id.
1:11—12, 1:20—22, 2:1—2. The inventor states their invention enables the
extraction of prescription information and instructions printed on a medicine
bottle or on a label affixed to the bottle. Id. 1:12—14.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 14 of the Appeal
Brief, as follows (emphasis added):
1. A system for extracting prescription information from a
medicine bottle, the system comprising:
a platform that supports and rotates the medicine bottle;
a mirror that reflects an image of an outer surface of the
medicine bottle;
an imaging device that captures a plurality of images of
the outer surface of the medicine bottle as the medicine bottle is
rotated;
a microprocessor that'.
controls the operation of the imaging device, and
assembles the captured plurality of images into a
single image',
a keypad used to enter a digital pharmacy code for a
dispensing pharmacy of the medicine bottle; and
a microphone that records an audio reading of
information to be associated with the medicine bottle.
2
Appeal 2017-008454
Application 13/573,247
II. REJECTION ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1—8 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Glynn,3 Hoshino,4 and Itoh5 (Ans. 2-4;
Non-Final Act. 2-4).
III. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Glynn discloses a system for extracting
prescription information from a medicine bottle that includes a platform, an
imaging device, a microprocessor, a keypad, and a microphone. Ans. 2—3.
The Examiner finds Glynn does not disclose a mirror or that the imaging
device captures a plurality of images but finds Hoshino discloses a mirror
and capturing a plurality of images and assembling the images. Id. at 3. The
Examiner further finds Itoh discloses capturing images by rotating a
medicine bottle. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
modify the system of Glynn in view of Hoshino and Itoh to reduce
processing time, as disclosed by Hoshino, and to reduce errors by rotating an
object being imaged, as disclosed by Itoh. Id.
The Appellant contends Glynn and Itoh do not disclose a system
having an imaging device that captures a plurality of images of an outer
surface of a medicine bottle and a microprocessor that assembles the
captured plurality of images into a single image, as recited in claim 1,
because Glynn and Itoh disclose the use of a barcode reader/scanner that
read barcodes but do not capture images or assemble images into a single
3 US 5,774,856 , issued June 30, 1998.
4 JP 2009-134657 A, published June 18, 2009.
5 US 2005/0252973 Al, published Nov. 17, 2005.
3
Appeal 2017-008454
Application 13/573,247
image. Appeal Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 3^4. The Appellant contends Hoshino
also does not disclose capturing a plurality of images and assembling the
images into a single image, as recited in claim 1, because Hoshino is
directed to the use of a barcode reader and a barcode does not provide a
plurality of images of an outer surface of a medicine bottle or include
information on the outer surface of the medicine bottle. Appeal Br. 10. The
Appellant further argues that reading a barcode does not include assembling
images into a single image and that reading different portions of a barcode or
“one bar at a time, for example, does not result in a new, assembled image of
the entire surface of a three-dimensional bottle.” Reply Br. 4—6.
The Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Glynn discloses a
patient compliance and monitoring system that can identify a medicine
bottle and determine a dosage from the bottle. Glynn 1:7—11. The system
includes a tray 9 in which medicine containers 1, 2, 4 having barcode labels
3, 5, 7 can be positioned, a barcode reader 13 attached to a positioner 15,
input means 31 (e.g., a keyboard or a microphone), and a computer that
stores usage data (e.g., dosage data) and receives input signals from the
barcode reader 13. Id. 2:49-62, 3:28—36, 3:41—61. Therefore, Glynn’s
disclosure supports the Examiner’s finding that Glynn discloses a system for
extracting prescription information from a medicine bottle that includes a
platform, an imaging device, a microprocessor, a keypad, and a microphone.
Hoshino discloses a system for reading barcodes on magnetic tape
cartridges. Hoshino 38—39. Hoshino discloses a CCD camera to image a
barcode and thus would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the
art that reading a barcode can be accomplished by imaging the barcode.
Hoshino further discloses that a barcode can have first and second reading
4
Appeal 2017-008454
Application 13/573,247
parts 54, 56 (i.e., parts to be read). Id. Tflf 10, 40. Hoshino discloses reading
the lower half (bar code reading part 56) and reading the upper half (bar
code reading part 54) of a barcode as part of an “operation of incorporation
of the bar code image.” Id. 1139. Hoshino also describes this process as
“the composition of reading in this working example by dividing into two
steps of the upper and lower sides of the barcode label 10.” Id.
1141.
Moreover, Hoshino discloses processes in which portions of a barcode
are iteratively imaged from bottom to top or top to bottom of the barcode
and integrating this information to read the barcode. Id. 1 142, 144, 152.
Thus, Hoshino discloses capturing a plurality of images and assembling
those images in order to read a barcode. Glynn also demonstrates it was
known to image portions of a barcode and assemble the images so the
entirety of a barcode is stored. Specifically, Glynn discloses an option in
which individual bars of various barcodes are stored “until each bar code is
entirely stored.” Glynn 5:66 to 6:5. Thus, Hoshino’s methods of reading a
barcode by integrating a plurality of images of the barcode correlate with
Glynn’s operation of storing a barcode bar by bar until the entirety of the
barcode is stored. As a result, the applied references demonstrate it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to capture a
plurality of images of an outer surface of a medicine bottle and assemble the
images into a single image, as recited in claim l.6
6 The Appellant argues the applied references do not disclose assembling an
image of the entire surface of a three-dimensional bottle. Reply Br. 5.
However, the language “an imaging device that captures a plurality of
images of the outer surface of the medicine bottle” of claim 1 does not use
the phrase “entire outer surface.”
5
Appeal 2017-008454
Application 13/573,247
Furthermore, Hoshino discloses a controller to control its barcode
reader and the use of a mirror to quickly obtain images of barcodes in
different locations without changing the position of its barcode reader, which
reduces processing time for reading barcodes. Hoshino Abstract, || 8, 10,
32. Thus, Hoshino’s disclosure supports the Examiner’s rationale for
modifying Glynn in view of Hoshino.
Itoh discloses a barcode reading apparatus including a rotating
mechanism to rotate a test tube with a barcode on its surface. Itoh H 5, 9.
Itoh discloses its system “eliminates a problem of failing to read a barcode”
(id. Ill) and thus supports the Examiner’s rationale to modify Glynn in
view of Itoh (e.g., to include a rotation mechanism to eliminate failures to
read a barcode, such as in a case in which a barcode is located on a curved
surface).
The Appellant further asserts the Examiner has not established a
motivation to combine Glynn, Hoshino, and Itoh because the applied
references do not disclose or suggest capturing a plurality of images of a
bottle surface or assembling the images into a single image, as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 10—12; Reply Br. 6—8. These arguments are
unpersuasive. As discussed above, claim 1 encompasses the system of
Glynn, as modified in view of Hoshino and Itoh. Further, the Examiner has
provided reasons to modify Glynn in view of Hoshino and Itoh that are
supported by the disclosures of the applied references. Ans. 3.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, the
Appellant’s arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
The Appellant does not provide any argument in support of the
6
Appeal 2017-008454
Application 13/573,247
separate patentability of dependent claims 2—8. Appeal Br. 8—13.
As a result, we uphold the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1—8
over Glynn in view of Hoshino and Itoh.
IV. SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—8 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7