May Patents Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 26, 2020

15213964 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2020)

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.
15/213,964 07/19/2016 Yehuda BINDER BINDER-006-US11 1749
131926 7590 10/26/2020
May Patents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov
P.O.B 7230
Ramat-Gan, 5217102
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
BUKOWSKI, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte YEHUDA BINDER
____________________

Appeal 2019-002040
Application 15/213,964
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHN R. KENNY, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In a Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1–62, which
constitute all pending claims. Final Act. 1. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a),
Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–62.
Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as May Patents Ltd.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002040
Application 15/213,964
2
CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellant, “[t]he present invention relates generally to
devices (such as displays) controlled by face detection.” Spec. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A device for displaying serially carried digital video
data by a video display, for use with a Local Area Network
(LAN) cable simultaneously carrying DC power and the
serial digital video data over the same wires, the device
comprising:
a LAN connector for connecting to the LAN cable;
a transceiver coupled to the LAN connector receiving the
serial digital video data from the LAN cable; and
a video connector for connecting to the video display, the
video connector coupled to the transceiver for displaying the
serial digital video data by the video display;
software and a processor to execute the software coupled
to control the transceiver, wherein the transceiver and the
processor are coupled to the LAN connector for being
powered by the DC power.
REFERENCES
Corbett
Chen
Yamada
Binder
Cho
Xu
Kitaura
Karam
US 6,061,434
US 6,439,920 B1
US 2004/0052504 A1
US 2005/0163152 A1
US 2006/0067367 A1
US 2007/0126884 A1
US 2007/0132725 A1
US 2008/0244284 A1
May 9, 2000
Aug. 27, 2002
Mar. 18, 2004
July 28, 2005
Mar. 30, 2006
June 7, 2007
June 14, 2007
Oct. 2, 2008
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) for failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 10.
Claims 1–3, 7–9, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Binder. Final Act. 11.
Appeal 2019-002040
Application 15/213,964
3
Claims 4, 5, 30–34, 36–41, and 58–62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Binder and Kitaura. Final
Act. 14.
Claims 6, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Binder and Xu. Final Act. 16.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Binder. Final Act. 14.
Claims 15 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Binder and Cho. Final Act. 16.
Claims 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Binder, Cho, and Chen. Final Act. 17.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Binder and Karam. Final Act. 18.
Claims 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Binder and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Final Act. 19.
Claims 24–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Binder and Yamada. Final Act. 19.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Binder, Yamada, and Corbett. Final Act. 20.
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Binder, Kitaura, and Xu. Final Act. 21.
Claims 42 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Binder, Kitaura, and Cho. Final Act.
21.
Claims 43–45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Binder, Kitaura, Cho, and Chen. Final Act. 21.
Appeal 2019-002040
Application 15/213,964
4
Claim 47 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Binder, Kitaura, and Karam. Final Act. 22.
Claims 48–52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Binder, Kitaura, and AAPA. Final Act. 22.
Claims 53–57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Binder, Kitaura, and Yamada. Final Act. 22.
ANALYSIS
Having considered the positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellant in light of this appeal record, unless noted otherwise, we affirm
the Examiner’s written description, anticipation, and obviousness rejections
for the reasons set forth in the Answer to the Appeal Brief and Final Office
Action appealed from, which we adopt as our own. We add the following
further explanations regarding the written description and anticipation
rejections, which we present primarily for emphasis.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
A. Claims 7–11 and 36–40
The Examiner finds that the Specification does not describe the
splitter and splitter arrangements recited in claims 7–11 and 36–40. Final
Act. 11. Each of these claims recites, or incorporates through dependency,
the limitation of “a splitter having first, second, and third ports for passing
. . . digital video data between the first and second ports and for passing the
DC power between the first and third ports.” Claims 7 and 36 expressly
recite this limitation. Claims 8–11 and 37–40 incorporate this limitation
through dependency from clams 7 and 36, respectively.
Appellant argues that its Specification describes the recited splitter
because splitters were well known in the art and, in related applications, the
Examiner did not reject other claims by Appellant that recite splitters.
Appeal 2019-002040
Application 15/213,964
5
Appeal Br. 6–8. Appellant further argues that Figure 58 of the Specification
describes the recited splitter. Reply Br. 2.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. First, the fact
that splitters were well known in the art does not mean that Appellant had
possession of the claimed device with the recited splitter. Ariad Pharm.,
Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“a description
that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written
description] requirement”) (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d
1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Second, the fact that the Examiner did not
reject similar recitations in other applications does not mean that the
rejection here is in error. Third, Appellant’s reliance in its Reply on Figure
58 for written description support is belated. Appellant should have
presented its argument regarding Figure 58 in its Appeal Brief, so the
Examiner could respond. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Fourth, even if we were
to consider Appellant’s argument regarding Figure 58, we would not agree
that Figure 58 demonstrates support for the limitation at issue. In its Reply,
with annotations, Appellant identifies how Figure 58 purportedly shows a
splitter with first, second, and third ports. Reply Br. 2. Appellant, however,
does not identify how the identified splitter is (i) “for passing the bi-
directional serial data between the first and second ports” and (ii) “for
passing the DC power between the first and second ports.” Id. And such
characteristics are not apparent from Appellant’s annotations, the
Specification, or the text of the Reply. Id. Thus, we sustain the written
description rejection of claims 7–11 and 36–40.
B. Claims 26–29 and 55–57
The Examiner finds that the Specification does not describe the
cellular modem recited in claims 26–29 and 55–57. Final Act. 10. Each of
Appeal 2019-002040
Application 15/213,964
6
claims 26–29 and 55–57 recite, or incorporate through dependency, the
limitation of “a cellular modem coupled to the cellular antenna for
transmitting serial digital data to, or receiving serial digital data from, the
cellular telephone network.” Claims 26 and 55 expressly recite this
limitation. Claims 27–29 and 56–57 incorporate this limitation through
dependency from clams 26 and 55, respectively.
Appellant argues that the term “cellular modem” was well known in
the art and that the Specification discloses cellular communication. Appeal
Br. 5. Appellant also argues that the term “cellular modem” has been recited
in claims in related applications that were not rejected for a lack of written
description. Id. at 5–6; Reply Br. 2.
We sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection of these
claims. First, the fact that cellular modems were well known in the art does
not mean that Appellant had possession of the claimed device using the
recited cellular modem. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352. Second, the fact that the
Examiner did not reject similar recitations in other applications does not
mean that the rejection here is in error. Thus, we sustain the written
description rejection of claims 26–29 and 55–57.
C. Claims 1–6, 12–25, 30–35, 41–54, and 58–62
The Examiner does not identify any recitation in claims 1–6, 12–25,
30–35, 41–54, and 58–62 that lacks written description support. Final Act.
10–11. Further, none of these claims depend from any of claims 7–11, 26–
29, 36–40, and 55–57, addressed above. Thus, we do not sustain the written
description rejection of claims 1–6, 12–25, 30–35, 41–54, and 58–62.
Appeal 2019-002040
Application 15/213,964
7
35 U.S.C. § 102
A. Claim 1
Appellant argues that Binder does not disclose the video display
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10. The Examiner finds that DTE (data
terminal equipment) 714 is the recited video display. Ans. 6. Appellant
disagrees, noting that DTE 714 is referred to as a DTE, not a video display.
Reply Br. 3–4.
We agree with the Examiner. Figure 7 of Binder illustrates element
714 as a computer with a display. Binder, Fig. 7. Further, Binder discloses
connecting a video camera to a card in personal computers, which teaches
the use of video with its computers. Id. ¶ 28. Binder also discloses the
interaction between computer 1002 (a counterpart to computer 714) and
video camera 1016, which also teaches the computer’s use of video. Id.
¶ 96, Fig. 10. Binder further discloses the use of its system for video
surveillance, which involves watching video on the display. Id. ¶ 101. We
agree that these teachings in Binder disclose a video display, and we sustain
the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
B. Claim 2
Appellant argues that Binder does not disclose the video display
recited in claim 2. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant presents the same arguments it
presented for claim 1, but also argues that paragraph 28 of Binder discloses
that its configuration does not allow remote video monitoring. Id.2 Remote
video monitoring, however, is not recited in claim 2. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claim 2.

2 Appellant cites paragraph 27, quoting “This configuration does not allow
remote video monitoring.” Appeal. Br. 10. That quotation, however, is in
paragraph 28 of Binder.
Appeal 2019-002040
Application 15/213,964
8
C. Claim 3
Appellant argues that Binder does not disclose “the video display is
coupled to the LAN connector for being powered by the DC power” as
recited in claim 3. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant argues that Binder is silent
regarding the powering of DTEs and video displays. Id. The Examiner
finds that Binder discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner. Binder discloses that its serial
intelligent cells (SICs) are LAN connectors. Binder ¶ 67. Binder further
discloses the use of DC power in its SICs. Id. ¶ 61. In addition, Binder
discloses its SICs power a connected electrical appliance 525 (via an outlet).
Id. ¶ 61, Fig. 5. Binder further discloses the use of a DTE with a monitor
(714) as connected to the SIC (700). Id. ¶ 71, Fig. 7. In addition, Binder
discloses powering the DTE from the SIC. Id. ¶ 72. We agree that these
disclosures teach the disputed limitation, and we sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 3.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–61 112 Written
Description
7–11, 26–
29, 36–40,
55–57
1–6, 12–25,
30–35, 41–
54, 58–62
1–3, 7–9, 11,
14
102 Binder 1–3, 7–9,
11, 14

4, 5, 30–34,
36–41, 58–62
103(a) Binder, Kitaura 4, 5, 30–34,
36–41, 58–
62

10 103(a) Binder 10
6, 12, 13 103(a) Binder, Xu 6, 12, 13
15, 19 103(a) Binder, Cho 15, 19
Appeal 2019-002040
Application 15/213,964
9
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–18 103(a) Binder, Cho, Chen 16–18
20 103(a) Binder, Karam 20
21–23 103(a) Binder, AAPA 21–23
24–28 103(a) Binder, Yamada 24–28
29 103(a) Binder, Yamada,
Corbett
29
35 103(a) Binder, Kitaura,
Xu
35
42, 46 103(a) Binder, Kitaura,
Cho
42, 46
43–45 103(a) Binder, Kitaura,
Cho, Chen
43–45
47 103(a) Binder, Kitaura,
Karam
47
48–52 103(a) Binder, Kitaura,
AAPA
48–52
53–57 103(a) Binder, Kitaura,
Yamada
53–57
Overall Outcome 1–62
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED