Frederick PerkinsDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 3, 201914735282 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation