Frederick Perkins

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

14735282 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019)

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.
14/735,282 06/10/2015 Frederick Perkins A24 1060
63640 7590 09/03/2019
MYERS BRADFORD, PLLC
1300 Pennsylvania Ave.
Seventh Floor
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
EXAMINER
OWENS, TSION B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2019 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):
kscala@myersbradford.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FREDERICK PERKINS
____________

Appeal 2018-007875
Application 14/735,282
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JOHN A. EVANS, and MATTHEW J.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–13. App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 The Appeal Brief identifies the inventor, Dr. Frederick Perkins, as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
Appeal 2018-007875
Application 14/735,282

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for bird feeders capable of
providing streaming video. See Abstract.

INVENTION
Claims 1 and 7 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. A self-contained bird feeder configured to provide
detailed images over a wireless network, comprising: a bird
feeder with a built in camera, computer, and internet
connection, the bird feeder comprising:
a. a feeder housing;
b. a feeder bottom;
c. a feed port disposed on the feeder bottom;
d. the camera mounted to the bird feeder;
e. the computer located within the feeder housing;
f. an internal power source; and
g. a WiFi adapter located within the feeder housing.

refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 2, 2018, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed July 27, 2018, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 30,
2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed September 11, 2017, “Final Act.”),
and the Specification (filed June 10, 2015, “Spec.”) for their respective
details.
Appeal 2018-007875
Application 14/735,282

3

References and Rejections3
Sung US 2015/0373945 A1 Filed June 26, 2015
Lovett US 2016/0156989 A1 Priority Nov. 7, 2012

The Claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1–5 and 7–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Sung. Final Act. 2–3.
2. Claims 6 and 11–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sung and Lovett. Final Act. 4–5.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–13 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellant’s
arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4–7.

CLAIMS 1–5 AND 7–10: ANTICIPATION BY SUNG.
CLAIMS 6 AND 11–13: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SUNG AND LOVETT.
Appellant argues all claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. See App. Br. 7, 5. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the

3 The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-007875
Application 14/735,282

4
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 with reference to Claim 1, and refer to the
rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Whether Sung is prior art.
Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “[a] self-contained bird feeder
. . . the bird feeder comprising . . . the camera mounted to the bird feeder.”
Independent Claim 7 recites commensurate limitations.
With respect to anticipation of independent Claims 1 and 7, the
Examiner finds “Sung discloses self-contained bird feeder configured to
provide detailed images over a wireless network, comprising: a bird feeder.”
Final Act. 2. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection relies on Sung as above
and relies on Lovett to teach limitations unrelated to the bird feeder. See
Final Act. 4.
Appellant contends Sung (US 2015/0373945, “Sung ’945”) can only
be asserted as prior art as of its June 26, 2015 filing date which is after
Appellant’s June 10, 2015 filing date. App. Br. 6. Appellant further
contends the disclosure of Sung would not be entitled to priority because the
underlying provisional application (US 62/017,461, filed June 26, 2014, “the
’461 provisional”) is limited to “pet feeders” and “pet” is defined as a dog or
a cat. Id.
The Examiner finds the ’461 provisional “explicitly discloses pet
(animal) feeders, also bird one of well know pet other than cat and dog.”
Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds: “the known five main group
Appeal 2018-007875
Application 14/735,282

5
(kingdoms) of living things bird is classify as animal kingdom, there for
Sung animal feeder can include bird.” Id., 6. In view thereof, the Examiner
finds Sung ’945 is entitled to the priority of the ’461 provisional.
The ’461 provisional discloses:
When your beloved pet stop[s] eating or begin[s] to eat much
less than their normal amount, the number one advise any
veterinarian would give is to take them to hospital right away
because most of the time it connects to some [severe] disease.
Although the primary reason why a cat or dog stops eating may
not always determined, it’s essential that your pet be thoroughly
evaluated as certain underlying disease[s] need to be ruled out.
The ’461 provisional, Summary, Background section.4 Sung further
discloses “[t]he feeder can be used by cat or dog as illustrated above.” The
’461 provisional, Summary, How it Works section.
Contrary to the Examiner, the Sung provisional is explicitly limited to
cats and dogs, but not birds. “Whenever the pet approaches the feeder, the
(c) weighing scale will be used to measure the weight, and the (d) camera
will be used to do pet face recognition (cat or dog) to identify which pet is
going to eat or drink by matching the facial signature against the owner’s pet
database.” Id. The’461 provisional fails to provide written description
support for subject matter related to bird feeders disclosed in Sung ’945 and
asserted against the present application. Although the Examiner has asserted
that birds may be a well-known type of pet, other than cats and dogs,
the’461 provisional provides no support for such a contention. In view of

4 The Sung provisional application is not paginated.
Appeal 2018-007875
Application 14/735,282

6
the forgoing, we find the prior art fails to disclose (under § 102) or to teach
or suggest (under § 103) each claimed limitation. We, therefore, decline to
sustain either the rejection of Claims 1–5 and 7–10 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(a)(2) or the rejection of Claims 6 and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1–5 and 7–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 6 and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.

REVERSED