Ex Parte Yehezkely et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2016

13773130 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016)

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.
13/773,130 02/21/2013 Alon Yehezkely 146194US 7581
15055 7590 12/16/2016
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
TREHAN, AKSHAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2016 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):
qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALON YEHEZKELY and DROR MEIRI
Appeal 2016-000147
Application 13/773,130
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-000147
Application 13/773,130
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—16 and 19—24. Claims 17 and 18 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a webcam module having a millimeter-
wave receiver and transmitter. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below
with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus configured to radiate millimeter-wave
signals and capture video signals, comprising:
a body portion enclosed in a casing;
a webcam module configured to capture the video signals,
wherein the webcam module includes a lens located in a first
location of the body portion;
an array of millimeter-wave active antennas configured to
radiate the millimeter-wave signals, wherein the array of
millimeter-wave active antennas is located in a second location
of the body portion; and
radio frequency (RF) circuitry configured to control and
activate the array of millimeter-wave active antennas, wherein
an opening in the casing of the body portion is formed around
the first location and the second location to expose the lens and
the array of millimeter-wave active antennas.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rofougaran US 2009/0213242 A1 Aug. 27, 2009
Chiang US 2011/0006953 A1 Jan. 13, 2011
Van Zeijl US 2011/0122012 A1 May 26, 2011
2
Appeal 2016-000147
Application 13/773,130
Weber US 2011/0255000 A1 Oct. 20,2011
Myszne US 2011/0279338 A1 Nov. 17, 2011
Tabe US 2013/0157729 A1 June 20,2013
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—13 and 19—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Myszne, Van Zeijl, Weber, and Chiang. Final Act.
2-13.
Claims 14—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Myszne, Van Zeijl, Weber, Chiang, Tabe, and
Rofougaran. Final Act. 13—15.
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. The Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1 allowing for separate
openings for the webcam and antennas is improper because the
recitation of “an opening” should be interpreted as a single opening
formed around both the location of the lens and the location of the
antennas.” App. Br. 6—7.
2. Van Zeijl’s configuration of a camera sensor CCD surrounded on all
four sides by an antenna array fails to teach an opening for either a
lens or antennas including a single opening formed around both
locations to expose the lens and the array of antennas as required by
claim 1. App. Br. 9.
3
Appeal 2016-000147
Application 13/773,130
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6—11)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—5), the issue presented on appeal is whether
the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Myszne’s laptop lid
including a webcam and a plurality of antennas, Van Zeijl’s configuration of
a webcam surrounded on all sides by antennas, and Weber’s and Chaing’s
respective openings for and windows positioned over a webcam and an
antenna array, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—15)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—5) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner does
not rely on the disputed claim construction interpreting the recitation of “an
opening” to apply separately to each of the first and second locations
wherein the disputed limitation is satisfied by separate openings. Ans. 2.1
Instead, because the Examiner finds the prior art teaches or suggests the
1 “Nonetheless, the Examiner finds the 35 USC 103 rejection per the Final
Office Action mailed on 11/19/2014 to have provided sufficient evidence
over obviousness rationale to teach ‘a single opening’ which will be
addressed in the paragraphs to follow.”
4
Appeal 2016-000147
Application 13/773,130
disputed limitation under an interpretation requiring a single opening (id),
Appellants’ contention 1 is moot. Therefore, not having relied upon the
disputed interpretation in rejecting the claims, we do not address whether the
Examiner erred in concluding an appropriate interpretation of the disputed
limitation includes separate openings.
In connection with contention 2, Appellants argue Van Zeijl is
deficient because it does not disclose openings in a body for the disclosed
arrangement of a camera sensor CCD surrounded on all sides by an array of
antennas. App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue Weber and Chiang are
deficient because, although disclosing individual openings, the references do
not each teach a combination of both a camera sensor and antennas with a
single opening. App. Br. 9—10. The Examiner responds by finding
Appellants’ arguments are focused against the references individually rather
than addressing their combination on which the rejection is based. Ans. 3.
The Examiner further explains which elements of the disputed limitation are
taught by each of the references and why one skilled in the art would have
combined the individual teachings to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. Ans. 3—5.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention of error. Appellants’
arguments do not address the Examiner’s findings. For example, Appellants
argue “Van Zeijl fails to teach an opening in the casing of a body that is
formed around a first and second location to expose both the lens (e.g., LS of
FIG. 4) and the antenna (e.g„ ANT of FIG. 6).” App. Br. 9. However,
given Van Zeijl discloses a CCD surrounded on all sides by an array of
antennas and Weber and Chaing teach the need for opening for each, the
combination teaches or at least suggests a single opening because, by
5
Appeal 2016-000147
Application 13/773,130
inspection, it is apparent that an opening accommodating the surrounding
antenna array would also provide the necessary opening for the centrally
located CCD. To the contrary, Appellants fail to explain how Van Zeijl’s
configuration of a central CCD surrounded by antennas could be provided
with an opening for the antennas as taught by Chiang that would not also
provide, at its center, an opening for the centrally located CCD as taught by
Weber. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, we note in passing and without reliance in rendering our
decision, one large opening in contrast to two separate openings to
accommodate the CCD and antennas is not sufficient by itself to patentably
distinguish over the prior art unless there are new or unexpected results.
Making elements of a device (i.e., the openings) integral (in this case, to
each other) or separable is considered to be an obvious design choice and
does not render an invention patentable. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968
(CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961); MPEP
§ 2144.04(V)(C). Accordingly, Appellants’ contention is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, the rejection of independent claims 19 and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myszne, Van Zeijl, Weber, and Chiang together with
the rejection of dependent claims 2—13, 20-22, and 24 which are not argued
separately. We further sustain the rejection of dependent claims 14—16
6
Appeal 2016-000147
Application 13/773,130
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myszne, Van Zeijl, Weber, Chiang, Tabe, and
Rofougaran, these dependent claims also not having been argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16 and 19—24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED
7