Ex Parte RYAN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2019

14090204 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/090,204 11/26/2013 JohnC. RYAN
24737 7590 02/07/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2007P00081USO 1 2328
EXAMINER
GILLIGAN, CHRISTOPHER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN C. RY AN 1
Appeal2018-000056
Application 14/090,204
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 10, 11, and 14--16. Claims 5, 7-9, 12, and 13 are
canceled. Appeal Br. 22-23 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appellant identifies
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000056
Application 14/090,204
Invention
The Specification discloses a video conference-enabling unit to
facilitate "intercommunication amongst persons having a common medical
condition while adhering to privacy requisites." Spec. 4, 11. 29-30; Abstract.
Exemplary Claims (key limitations emphasized)
1. A medical communication system comprising:
audio/video interfaces disposed in residences of subjects, each
audio/video interface including a consumer electronics device
providing audio/video playback capability and a camera
providing audio/video recording capability wherein the camera
includes a video recording lens and an automatic lens cover
that is interlocked to physically block the video recording lens
except during recording of audio/video content; and
a distributed medical server including a processor disposed in
each residence and operatively coupled with the audio/video
interface of that residence, the distributed medical server being
configured to perform video conferencing in conjunction with
selected processors and a network in which selected subjects
view the video conference using the playback capability of the
consumer electronics device disposed in the subject's residence
and participate in the video conference by being recorded using
the camera disposed in the subject's residence.
6. The medical communication method of claim 1, wherein the
camera further includes a microphone configured to physically
retract from view except when the audio/video recording device
is recording audio/video content.
16. The medical communication system of claim 1 wherein the
distributed medical server includes a current speaker
disambiguation engine configured to determine which
participant of the video conference is currently speaking based
on relative audio signal strength integrated over a time window
and pass through only a data stream of the participant
determined to be currently speaking.
2
Appeal2018-000056
Application 14/090,204
Re} ections and references
The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Adv. Act. 2 2-
3; see also Final Act. 4 (detailing basis for rejection before entry of after-
final amendment).
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over Douglas et al. (US 6,039,688; issued Mar. 21, 2000)
("Douglas") and Fumio et al. (US 6,515,705 Bl; issued Feb. 4, 2003)
("Fumio"). Adv. Act. 4--5; Final Act. 4--8.
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being obvious over Douglas, Fumio, and Furlong et al. (US 2007 /0291736
Al; published Dec. 20, 2007) ("Furlong"). Adv. Act. 6-9; Final Act. 10-12.
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over Douglas, Fumio, and Oka et al. (US 2004/0051788 Al;
published Mar. 18, 2004) ("Oka"). Adv. Act. 6; Final Act. 8-9.
The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over Douglas, Fumio 3, Furlong, and Saruhashi et al. (US
2004/0205131 Al; published Oct. 14, 2004) ("Saruhashi"). Adv. Act. 9;
Final Act. 12-13.
The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over Douglas, Fumio, Furlong, and Oka. Adv. Act. 10; Final Act.
13-14.
2 All references to "Adv. Act." are to the Advisory Action entered February
16, 2017.
3 The Examiner omits Fumio in stating the rejection of claim 11, which
depends from claim 10. Adv. Act. 9; Final Act. 12.
3
Appeal2018-000056
Application 14/090,204
The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over Douglas, Fumio, Furlong, and David et al. (US 5,544,649;
issued Aug. 13, 1996) ("David"). Adv. Act. 10-11; Final Act. 14--15.
The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over Douglas, Fumio, and Porter et al. (US 2006/0198554 Al;
published Sept. 7, 2006) ("Porter"). Adv. Act. 11-12.
35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH
Claim 16 recites "a current speaker disambiguation engine configured
to determine which participant of the video conference is currently speaking
based on relative audio signal strength integrated over a time window." The
Specification depicts this disambiguation engine in a block in Figure 15, and
discloses that the disambiguation engine "determines which participant is
currently speaking and hence should be viewed" by making a participant
selection "suitably based on factors such as relative audio signal strength
integrated over a time window, analysis of video cues such as movement of
the mouth, or so forth." Spec. 22, 11. 10-16.
The Examiner finds claim 16 fails to meet the written description
requirement because "there is no disclosure of how relative audio strength is
to be integrated over a time window nor how the integrated relative audio
signal strength is to be utilized to determine which participant of the video
conference is currently speaking." Adv. Act. 3. The Examiner also finds
"there is no guidance on what [a] suitable 'time window' would be or any
diagrams, formulas, algorithms, etc. for how the integration over the 'time
window' is to be performed." Ans. 4.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the Specification
evinces that the inventor had possession of "the claim limitation of
4
Appeal2018-000056
Application 14/090,204
determining which participant is currently speaking based on relative audio
signal strength integrated over a time window." Appeal Br. 18.
Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner improperly requires "not only
that the [S]pecification disclose 'determining which participant is currently
speaking based on relative audio signal strength integrated over a time
window', but more particularly requires some specific algorithm operating
on the relative audio signal strength integrated over a time window to
determine which participant is currently speaking." Id. at 19. Appellant
further argues the Examiner's determinations do not "actually address
whether the [S]pecification satisfies the written description requirement for
the actually recited claim limitation. Rather, the [Examiner] argues lack of
written description support for some hypothetical species of the generic
claim limitation that is actually recited in claim 16." Reply Br. 7.
We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. The Examiner's
reasoning provides an insufficient basis for concluding the written
description requirement is not met for claim 16. Rather, the Examiner's
reasoning is directed to whether the disputed recitation of claim 16 is
enabled (see Adv. Act. 3) or whether the disputed recitation is definite (see
Ans. 4). The Examiner does not, however, reject claim 16 for lack of
enablement or for being indefinite.
Because the Examiner's reasoning does not support the Examiner's
written description rejection, we do not sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 16.
35 U.S.C. § 103(A}-CLAIMS 1--4, 10, 11, 15, AND 16
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Fumio's lens
covers-which cover the lens when an image pickup unit is in an unused
5
Appeal2018-000056
Application 14/090,204
position and which uncover the lens when the image pickup unit is in a used
position-teaches wherein the camera includes a video recording lens and
an automatic lens cover that is interlocked to physically block the video
recording lens except during recording of audio/video content. Adv. Act. 5
(citing Fumio, col. 6, 11. 20-59); see also Ans. 2-3.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "moving the image
pickup unit (53) into the used position does not trigger recording of audio/
video content." App. Br. 8. Rather, Appellant argues, "Fumio teaches that
the recording of audio/video content is controlled by a release button (12)."
Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues Fumio teaches that the "user views an image
on the LCD monitor 1 7 and presses the release button 12. If the release
button 12 is pressed by the user, the image pickup device captures the image .
. . . The digital video signals are recorded in the memory card." Id. (citing
Fumio, col. 5, 11. 34--42) ( omission in original) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because the claimed
recording does not require recording digital video signals in a memory card.
This is supported by the Specification's disclosure that the claimed invention
addresses patient concerns "that a camera will be used to record their private
activities." Spec. 3, 11. 8 (emphasis added). That is, a patient's concern is
not narrowly directed to whether video signals are being stored, but whether
the camera is in operation without the patient's knowledge and consent, thus
compromising the patient's privacy-a concern that would still be relevant if
captured image data were merely used for temporary reproduction (e.g., on a
screen accessible to others). Therefore, the claimed "recording of
6
Appeal2018-000056
Application 14/090,204
audio/video content" encompasses the capture of image data for temporary
reproduction.
This is precisely what is disclosed in Fumio, which allows the user to
view the image before pressing release button 12. See Fumio, col. 5, 11. 34--
3 6. That is, the "user views an image on the LCD monitor 1 7 and presses
the release button 12." Id. Thus, even before the user chooses to have
captured images stored on a memory card, Fumio' s camera records images
for reproduction on LCD monitor 1 7.
Because Fumio 's reproduction of images----even before the user
presses release button 12-represents a recording, we agree with the
Examiner that Fumio teaches or suggests "wherein the camera includes a
video recording lens and an automatic lens cover that is interlocked to
physically block the video recording lens except during recording of
audio/video content," as recited in claim 1. Adv. Act. 5.
Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1 and similarly claims 2--4, 10, 11, 15, and 16 for the same reasons
discussed. See Appeal Br. 9, 12-14, 16-17.
35 U.S.C. § 103(A}-CLAIMS 6 AND 14
In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds that Oka's extendable and
retractable microphone-which can be used as a power switch-teaches or
suggests wherein the camera further includes a microphone configured to
physically retract from view except when the audio/video recording device is
recording audio/video content. Adv. Act. 6 ( citing Oka ,r 148); Ans. 3--4
( citing, e.g., Oka ,r 240).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Oka "discloses
manually extending or retracting the microphone (89) of the microphone
7
Appeal2018-000056
Application 14/090,204
commander (80) to tum a 'microphone commander' (80) on or off." Appeal
Br. 10. That is, Appellant argues Oka's "microphone is not configured to
physically retract from view . . . . Rather the user retracts the microphone to
tum the microphone commander (80) off." Id. at 11.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly finds, claim 6 does not "exclude manually retracting the
microphone when the audio/video recording device is not being used to
record audio/video content." Ans. 3. Claim 6 recites "a microphone
configured to physically retract from view" without limiting how the
microphone physically retracts. Thus, the microphone retracting by being
pushed (e.g., because the microphone also serves as a switch) falls within a
broad but reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation in light of the
Specification.
Appellant further argues "turning on or off the microphone
commander (80) ... does not tum on or off the recording of audio/video
content. Rather, in Oka the recording of audio/video content is turned on or
off by the start/stop (ST/ST) key (21)." Appeal Br. 11 (citing Oka ,r 88); see
also Reply Br. 4--5. This argument is unpersuasive because an embodiment
of Oka's devices allows for a headset supplemented with earphones to
monitor sounds being picked up by the microphone commander regardless
whether a recording mode is selected. See Oka ,r 230. That is, Oka provides
the audio equivalent to Fumio's reproduction of images on an LCD display.
Compare Oka ,r 230 with Fumio, col. 5, 11. 34--36.
Because Oka teaches recording audio (i.e., sending it to earphones for
reproduction) regardless whether the start/stop key is pressed, we agree with
the Examiner that Oka teaches or suggests "wherein the camera further
8
Appeal2018-000056
Application 14/090,204
includes a microphone configured to physically retract from view except
when the audio/video recording device is recording audio/video content," as
recited in claim 6. Adv. Act. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 6 and similarly claim 14 for the same reasons discussed. Appeal
Br. 15.
DECISION
Because we sustain at least one rejection of each claim, we affirm the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 10, 11, and 14--16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9