Mirlay, Ram Srikanth.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 7, 2020

13808948 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 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.
13/808,948 01/08/2013 Ram Srikanth Mirlay Q216176 2468
70432 7590 04/07/2020
Sughrue Mion PLLC
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
FEREJA, SAMUEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/07/2020 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):
USPTO@sughrue.com
demery@sughrue.com
pprocessing@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte RAM SRIKANTH MIRLAY
________________

Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 25–42. An oral hearing was held March
10, 2020. 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.
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
2

Summary of the disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to providing “a variable
three-dimensional camera assembly for still photography.” Abstract.
Representative claims (key limitations emphasized)
25. A dual-camera assembly to render a variable three-
dimensional view of a target-object, comprising:
left and right movable and telescoping arms with objectives
having optical axes, operably connected to left and right
portions of a housing and disposed horizontally along an axis
A-A, wherein the movable and telescopic arms are operable to
move laterally away from the housing and convergingly
towards the target-object, to secure left and right perspectives
of the target-object;
a pair of stationary convergence lenses with an inter-spatial
distance, disposed in the movable and telescoping arms of the
left and right camera units and aligned with the optical axes of
the objectives wherein the inter-spatial distance is varied
optically;
at least a motorized control unit operably connected to said pair
of movable and telescoping arms, wherein said control unit
arranged to operate the left and right movable and telescoping
arms;
a horizon parallel indicator operably connected to the housing,
wherein said parallel indicator disposed to balance the left and
right portions of the housing; and
left and right eye pieces, disposed in left and right portions of
the housing and optically aligned with the objectives, to view
simultaneously the three-dimensional view target-object, with
an enhanced depth perception.
26. The dual-camera assembly according to claim 25, wherein
the left and right movable and telescopic arms further
comprising;
a plurality of image processing units;
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
3

at least a polarized filter disposed at the distal ends of the
movable and telescoping arms;
a plurality of barrels and elbows, wherein said elbows and
barrels disposed to vary inter pupillary distance (IPD),
optically, and provide a variable degree of left and right
convergence angles to the movable and telescoping arms; and
a plurality of graticules disposed in the movable and
telescoping arms, to synchronize the left and right perspectives
of the target object;
wherein said image processing units, polarized filter, barrels,
elbows and graticules are optically aligned with the optical
axes.
28. The dual-camera assembly according to claim 25, wherein
the movable and telescoping arms are disposed with variable
and independent target-object convergence positions.
34. The dual-camera assembly according to claim 25, wherein
the movable and telescoping arms are metallic or of fiber optic
material.
37. The dual-camera assembly according to claim 25, wherein
left and right display screens to simultaneously display the
three-dimensional view target-object are arranged on the
housing in proximity to the eye pieces.
The Examiner’s rejections and cited references
The Examiner rejects claims 25, 27–30, 32–35, and 37–422 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Riederer (US 8,390,675 B1;
issued Mar. 5, 2013), Inaba (US 5,879,064; issued Mar. 9, 1999), and Ball
(US 7,184,088 B1; issued Feb. 27, 2007). Final Act. 19–27.

2 The Final Rejection erroneously lists claim 36 in the statement of the
rejection. Final Act. 19. Claim 36, however, is rejected separately based on
an additional reference. Id. at 30–31.
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
4

The Examiner rejects claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Riederer, Inaba, Ball, Huber et al. (US 2011/0007278 A1;
published Jan. 13, 2011) (“Huber”), and Givon (US 2011/0080496 A1;
published Apr. 7, 2011). Final Act. 27–29.
The Examiner rejects claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Riederer, Inaba, Ball, and Suto et al. (US 2006/0215021
A1; published Sept. 28, 2006) (“Suto”). Final Act. 29–30.
The Examiner rejects claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Riederer, Inaba, Ball, and Givon. Final Act. 30–31.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and
we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide
the following explanation for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
Claims 25, 27, 31–33, 35, 36, and 39–42
In rejecting claim 25 as obvious, the Examiner finds Reiderer’s slider
and flexing beam mounted, adjustable telescopes teach or suggest “left and
right movable and telescoping arms with objectives . . . wherein the movable
and telescopic arms are operable to move laterally away from the housing
and convergingly towards the target-object.” Final Act. 19 (citing Reiderer
col. 9, ll. 5–21, col. 12, ll. 5–11, Fig. 2); Ans. 17 (further citing, e.g.,
Reiderer col. 3, ll. 23–30).
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
5

Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “the lateral movement
of the telescopes (5a) and (5b) is performed by means of a slider (11a) and is
limited to adjusting” interpupillary distance. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Reiderer
col. 9, ll. 18–21); see also id. at 20 (arguing with respect to claim 32 “the
length of the optical path of the left and right optical instrument 5a and 5b
that is varied . . . is also constrained due to sliding movement of the slider,
which is limited to the” interpupillary distance); id. at 27–28. Appellant
further argues that adjusting “the slider (11a) and the flexing beam (10a) . . .
move[s] the whole of each telescope (5a) and (5b).” Id. at 12.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive, however, because the
Examiner does not rely on Reiderer’s telescope’s in isolation to teach or
suggest the disputed recitation. Rather, the Examiner relies on the telescopes
and the slider and flexing beam on which they are mounted as teaching or
suggesting the claimed left and right movable and telescoping arms with
objectives. See, e.g., Final Act. 19; see also id. at 27 (finding that a telescope
extending from a flexing beam represents an elbow of an arm).
The Examiner further finds Reiderer’s use of lenses in the telescopes
teaches or suggests “a pair of stationary convergence lenses with an inter-
spatial distance.” See Final Act. 19 (citing Reiderer col. 9, ll. 5–21, col. 11,
ll. 35–50, Fig. 2); Ans. 17 (further citing, e.g., Reiderer col. 14, ll. 10–20).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the claimed “objectives 15,
25 are located at the ends of the movable telescoping arms, whereas the
convergent lenses 10, 20 are fixed within the housing 5 so as to be
stationary.” Appeal Br. 12 (referring to Spec., Fig. 1A).
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the disputed
recitation does not identify with respect to what the convergence lenses are
stationary as broadly as recited. See Appeal Br. 36 (reciting “a pair of
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
6

stationary convergence lenses with an inter-spatial distance, disposed in the
movable and telescoping arms of the left and right camera units . . .”). The
Specification merely provides an example in which the convergence lenses
are stationary with respect to the housing. See Spec. Fig. 1A. Even in this
example, the convergence lenses can be moved (e.g., by moving the
housing).
Appellant also argues, with respect to claim 31, “the interspatial
distance between the convergence lenses are fixed.” Appeal Br. 34. But
Appellant fails to identify any claim recitations that require a fixed
interspatial distance. As discussed above, the stationary limitation does not
specify with respect to what the convergence lenses are stationary.
Moreover, claim 25 merely recites that the “pair of stationary convergence
lenses [have] an inter-spatial distance.” See id. at 36. Even if the lenses can
be moved with respect to each other, the lenses still have an inter-spatial
distance, even if it is an adjustable inter-spatial distance.
Furthermore, Appellant does not dispute that Reiderer teaches or
suggests convergence lenses. See Appeal Br. 12. Appellant merely argues
that they “both the objectives and the convergent lenses in Reiderer’s
telescopes move via the slider (11a) and the flexing beam (10a).” Id.
Reiderer teaches or suggests, however, that when the telescopes themselves
are adjusted, the objectives move while the convergent lenses remain
stationary, so as to change the spacing of the optical components for
purposes of focus or magnification. See Reiderer col. 8, ll. 21–30. That is,
the convergent lenses of Reiderer are stationary with respect to where they
are mounted, in contrast with objectives that are adjustable with respect to
the mountings.
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
7

Appellant argue argues with respect to claim 29 that “any possible
lateral separation of telescopes 5a and 5b, beyond the length of the slider 11a
(beyond the body of the camera) was neither contemplated nor required by
Riederer.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant contends that in the claimed “invention
movable and telescoping arms (not telescopes) are configured to move
laterally beyond the housing of the assembly and to converge on to the
target-object at variable target-object converging positions which are
perpendicular and at variable oblique angles to the vertical axis of the
housing.” Id. at 17 (emphasis added). Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive because Reiderer depicts telescopes 5a and 5b as being adjustable
so as to extend laterally beyond Stereoscopic Image Acquisition Device 4.
See Reiderer Fig. 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 25, and claims 27, 31–33, 35, 36, and 39–42, which Appellant does
not argue separately with persuasive specificity. See Appeal Br. 13–16, 19–
24, 26–29.
Claim 26
In rejecting claim 26 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Reiderer’s
positioning of a telescope on a flexing beam teaches or suggests left and
right movable and telescopic arms comprising “a plurality of barrels and
elbows, wherein said elbows and barrels disposed to vary inter pupillary
distance (IPD), optically, and provide a variable degree of left and right
convergence angles to the movable and telescoping arms.” Final Act. 27
(citing Reiderer col. 9, ll. 5–21, col. 11, ll. 35–50, col. 12, ll. 5–11, Fig. 2).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “elbows as used in the
movable and telescoping arms of the dual-camera assembly of the present
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
8

invention[] are configured to bend the arms[] at variable converging
positions.” Appeal Br. 32. Appellant argues that “if one were to substitute
the [recited] elbows with the telescopes 5a and 5b, the arms would merely
extend to view distant objects but not converge at variable converging
positions.” Id. That is, Appellant argues that Reiderer does not teach or
suggest elbows that bend flexibly.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate
with the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 26 is not limited
to flexibly bendable elbows. That is, it is the claimed “plurality of barrels
and elbows” that “provide a variable degree of left and right convergence
angles to the movable and telescoping arms,” not the elbows alone. Thus,
fixed elbows—i.e., Reiderer’s telescopes being mounted at an angle to their
supports—fall within the scope of the claimed invention if the supports
themselves can be adjusted to provide the recited variable degree of left and
right convergence angles. Reiderer’s convergence angles can be adjusted in
this manner. See, e.g., Reiderer col. 12, ll. 5–11.
Appellant further argues the claimed “barrels of the movable and
telescopic arms are hollow tubes” and “do not perform the function of the
flexing beam of . . . Reiderer . . . but assist in extension and retraction of the
movable telescopic arms.” Appeal Br. 32. Appellant’s argument is
unpersuasive because Reiderer’s telescopes are themselves barrels. See, e.g.,
Reiderer Fig. 2. Appellant’s argument regarding the precise function of the
claimed barrels is not commensurate with the scope of claim 26, which
merely recites that the “plurality of barrels and elbows . . . provide a variable
degree of left and right convergence angles to the movable and telescoping
arms.”
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
9

Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 26.
Claims 28–30
In rejecting claim 28 as obvious, the Examiner finds Reiderer’s
deflection of one “or both sensors’ mounting and their respective lens and
axis” (Reiderer col. 12, ll. 6–7) teaches or suggests “wherein the movable
and telescoping arms are disposed with variable and independent target-
object convergence positions” (see Final Act. 22 (citing Reiderer col. 12, ll.
5–11); Ans. 19).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “the adjustable
mechanism of hinge or flexing beam of metal, plastic or other suitable
material . . . can only provide a limited convergence of the optical axes.”
Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added). Claim 28 does not, however, require
unlimited or even extensive variability in the convergence of the optical
axes. Rather, claim 28 merely requires that the target-object convergence
positions be “variable and independent.” Appeal Br. 38. Reiderer
specifically discloses adjusting convergence “by use of a mechanism with an
actuator to deflect either or both of the sensors’ mounting and their
respective lens and axis.” Reiderer col. 12, ll. 5–7. That is, the positions can
be adjusted, and thus are variable, and the adjustments can be done to either
of the sensor mountings, and thus the adjustments are independent.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 28. Moreover, as discussed above, Appellant’s argument that “any
possible lateral separation of telescopes 5a and 5b, beyond the length of the
slider 11a (beyond the body of the camera) was neither contemplated nor
required by Riederer” (Appeal Br. 16) is unpersuasive because Reiderer
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
10

depicts telescopes 5a and 5b as being adjustable so as to extend laterally
beyond Stereoscopic Image Acquisition Device 4 (see Reiderer Fig. 2).
Appellant also does not argue claim 30 separately with persuasive
specificity. See Appeal Br. 19–20. Accordingly, we also sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 29 and 30.
Claim 34
In rejecting claim 34, the Examiner finds that Reiderer’s disclosed use
of metal, plastic, or other suitable material in its flexing beam teaches or
suggests the claim limitation “wherein the movable and telescoping arms are
metallic or of fiber optic material.” See Final Act. 24 (citing Reiderer col.
12, l. 11, Fig. 2); Ans. 23. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because
“the claimed elements of claim 34 are directed to the material, which are
used for the movable and telescoping arms.” Appeal Br. 22.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because claim 25, which claim
34 depends from, recites “left and right movable and telescoping arms with
objectives” (emphasis added). That is, the objectives are recited as part of
the movable and telescoping arms. The Specification discloses making these
objectives with lenses or glass. See Spec. ¶ 80. Thus, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the disputed claim 34 recitation of the arms being metallic
or of fiber optic material encompasses movable and telescoping arms that
are partially metallic.
As discussed above with respect to claim 25, the Examiner finds that
Reiderer’s flexing beam is part of the teaching or suggestion of a movable
and telescoping arm. See, e.g., Final Act. 19. Thus, Reiderer’s flexing beam
teaches or suggests a movable and telescoping arm that is at least partially
metallic.
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
11

Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 34.
Claims 37 and 38
In rejecting claim 37, the Examiner relies on Inaba’s optical systems
having projection lenses 13R and 13L and focusing plates 14R and 14L
arranged in proximity to eye pieces 15R and 15L to teach or suggest
“wherein left and right display screens to simultaneously display the three-
dimensional view target-object are arranged on the housing in proximity to
the eye pieces.” Final Act. 24–25 (citing Inaba col. 4, ll. 45–50); see also
Ans. 24. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Inaba discloses a
stereoscopic observation endoscope 10 (not a dual camera assembly as
averred by the Examiner) with operation microscopes 10c and 10d.” Appeal
Br. 24 (citing Inaba ¶ 23, Fig. 1).
Appellant’s arguments is unpersuasive, however, because the
Examiner relies on Reiderer, not Inaba, to teach or suggest a dual-camera
assembly. The Examiner merely relies on Inaba’s projection lenses, focusing
plates, and eye pieces to teach or suggest arranging left and right display
screens on the housing in proximity to the eye pieces. See Final Act. 24–25.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 37, and claim 38, which Appellant does not argue separately with
persuasive specificity. See Appeal Br. 26.
Appeal 2018-009018
Application 13/808,948
12

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
25, 27–30,
32–35, 37–42
103(a) Riederer, Inaba,
Ball
25, 27–30,
32–35, 37–42

26 103(a) Riederer, Inaba,
Ball, Huber,
Givon
26
31 103(a) Riederer, Inaba,
Ball, Suto
31
36 103(a) Riederer, Inaba,
Ball, Givon
36
Overall
Outcome
25–42
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