Ex Parte RYANDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 5, 201914090204 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation