QUAN XING ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. (ASSIGNEE) et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 8, 2021

2021004463 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2021)

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.
90/014,443 01/31/2020 10466467 0941/3406PUS2 4006
60601 7590 10/08/2021
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
DAWSON, GLENN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/08/2021 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 QUAN XING ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY
(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD.
Patent Owner and Appellant

Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467 B2
Technology Center 3900
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DANIEL S. SONG, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306, Quan Xing Electronic
Technology (Appellant)1 appeals from the final rejection of claims 1 and
3–14.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Quan Xing Electronic
Technology (ShenZhen) Co., LTD. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467, B2

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an electronic telescope. Claim 1,
reproduced below in amended format, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An electronic telescope, comprising:
a main body, including an objective end and an eyepiece
end which is opposite to the objective end;
a lens module disposed on the objective end;
a display module, connected to the lens module and
configured to display an image captured from the lens module;
and
a single eyepiece lens with a single focus, which has a
longitudinal structure and is disposed on the eyepiece end,
wherein the eyepiece lens corresponds to a user’s two eyes;
wherein the main body further has an observation room
situated between the objective end and the eyepiece end, and the
observation room has a tapered structure with a first end and a
second end respectively corresponding to the objective end and
an eyepiece end,
wherein an opening of the tapered structure of the
observation room is narrower on the first end than on the second
end, and the display module is disposed on the first end, and
wherein the single eyepiece lens is a biconvex lens having
a first convex surface and an opposite second convex surface,
and the second convex surface is closer to the display module
than the first convex surface.
Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467, B2

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Cornalba US 2,492,270 Dec. 27, 1949
Kim US 5,485,307 Jan. 16, 1996
Watanabe US 6,188,516 B1 Feb. 13, 2001
Bellefuil US 6,728,030 B2 Apr. 27, 2004
Fukumoto US 9,229,215 B2 Jan. 5, 2016
Gebelein US 2007/0081261 A1 Apr. 12, 2007
Choe US 2011/0141223 A1 June 16, 2011
Chen CN 204241758 U Apr. 1, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–10, and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Chen, Bellefuil, Cornalba, Choe, Fukumoto,
Watanabe, and Kim.3
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Chen, Bellefuil, Cornalba, Choe, Fukumoto, Watanabe, Kim, and Gebelein.
OPINION
Claim 1
Appellant alleges, generally, that “the applied references, alone or in
combination, fail to teach or suggest” that “the single eyepiece lens is a
biconvex lens having a first convex surface and an opposite second convex

3 Cornalba, Choe, Fukumoto, Watanabe, and Kim are listed as alternative
references in the rejection of claims 1 and 3–10. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner includes a separate heading, applying the same combination of
references for the rejection of claims 12–14, but requiring use of Choe in the
combination.
Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467, B2

4
surface, and the second convex surface is closer to the display module than
the first convex surface,” as recited in the amendment to claim 1. Appeal
Br. 8. This is the only limitation from claim 1 addressed by Appellant.
Although Appellant purports to dispute the Examiner’s rejection with
respect to claim 1, no meaningful argument is provided in the Appeal Brief.4
See Appeal Br. 7–9. As explained below, Appellant does not address the
actual basis of the rejection relied on by the Examiner.
For the limitation noted above, the Examiner finds that Chen teaches
“a display module 40” and “an eyepiece lens 52,” but “fails to disclose that
the eyepiece lens is a single eyepiece lens corresponding to a user’s two
eyes.” Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner finds that Bellefuil teaches “an eyepiece lens 150 wide
enough to view display 140 using both eyes.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner
reasons that “[i]t would have been obvious to have provided Chen’s device
with a single eyepiece lens . . . as this would simplify the structure and allow
viewing using two eyes instead of a single eye making viewing easier.” Id.
With respect to the lens being a “bi-convex lens[],” the Examiner
finds that such “lenses were notoriously well-known types of magnifying
lenses at the time of the invention.” Final Act. 5 (citing Cornalba, Choe,
Fukumoto, Watanabe, Kim in support of finding). The Examiner reasons
that using a bi-convex lens in the proposed combination “as simply being a
well-known alternative lens, known by those of ordinary skill in the art, for
use in binoculars, telescopes, and other ocular devices.” Id. at 6. The
Examiner further explains that selecting such a lens

4 No Reply Brief was filed by Appellant.
Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467, B2

5
would have been the obvious choice of one of a finite number
of types of lenses to choose from and one would have had every
reason to have expected success when placing it in Chen’s
device to produce the night vision telescope as it would act to
focus and magnify or enlarge the image to facilitate viewing of
the image.
Id. The Examiner finds that “[w]hen placed in Chen’s device one side of the
biconvex lens would be closer to the display module than the other opposite
side.” Id.
With respect to Chen, Appellant contends that “Chen does not include
any single biconvex lens corresponding to the display module.” Appeal
Br. 8. This does not apprise us of error because, as the Examiner explains,
“the specification and the claims do not specify that the single biconvex
eyepiece lens corresponds to the display module” and “the combination of
references used in the art rejections teaches a biconvex lens.” Ans. 10.
Appellant provides similar unpersuasive contentions with respect to
Bellefuil and Choe, as well as Cornalba, Choe, Fukumoto, Watanabe, and
Kim, which, as noted above, the Examiner cited as evidence that “bi-convex
lenses were notoriously well-known types of magnifying lenses at the time
of the invention” (Final Act. 5). Appeal Br. 8–9.
Appellant acknowledges that “[t]he apparatuses in Cornalba,
Fukumoto, Watanabe and Kim comprise biconvex lenses,” but alleges
hindsight bias and that “there is no reason for a person having ordinary skill
in the art to use these biconvex lenses to replace the eyepiece lens 150 in
Bellefuil.” Appeal Br. 8. Again, the problem is that Appellant’s general
allegation does not address the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, it does
not apprise us of error.
Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467, B2

6
Claims 5, 6, 8–10, and 13 depend from claim 1. Appellant does not
provide separate argument for those claims.
For at least the reasons set forth above, Appellant fails to identify
reversible error in the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 8–10.
Claims 3 and 4
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “the eyepiece
lens has a first side and an opposite second side, the first side is farther away
from display module than the second side, and a radius of curvature of the
eyepiece lens on the first side has a range of 280 mm to 330 mm.” Claim 4
depends from claim 3 and further recites that “a radius of curvature of the
eyepiece lens on the second side has a range of 100 mm to 150 mm.”
Appellant acknowledges that “[i]t is known to those of ordinary skill
in the art that when the radiuses of curvature of the eyepiece lens on the first
side and the second side are in the range of claims 3 and 4, the optical
performance can be enhanced, and the user can watch the display module
comfortably.” Appeal Br. 10. As the Examiner explains, if the recited
ranges were known by one skilled in the art to produce the benefits alleged
by Appellant, then they would have been obvious. Ans. 12–13. We are not
apprised of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3 and 4 for this
reason, alone.
Moreover, the Examiner further determines that the ranges are
obvious as a matter of design choice, as well as routine optimization. Final
Act. 6–7. As there is no meaningful response to these findings, we are also
not apprised of error in this additional basis for rejecting claims 3 and 4.
Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467, B2

7
Claim 7
Claim 7 ultimately depends from claim 1 and further recites that “a
circuit board connects the lens module and the display, and a charge-coupled
device is disposed on the circuit board.” The Examiner finds that “Chen
teaches a circuit board 73 in the main body, having a CCD connecting the
lens module to the display-see fig. 2 and [0069].” Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends that “Chen . . . does not disclose that there is a
[charge-coupled device] disposed [on its circuit board].” Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner responds that “the circuit board 73 with Light-Emitting
Diodes 30 has a CCD-charge coupled device.” Ans. 13.
The record lacks detail, both in the finding made by the Examiner and
Appellant’s rebuttal. Based on the record before us, however, the Examiner
fails to provide sufficient support for the finding that Chen’s “circuit board
73 with Light-Emitting Diodes 30 has a CCD-charge coupled device.”
Indeed, the Examiner provides no explanation to support this finding, which
is problematic, particularly when that finding is disputed by Appellant.5
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject
claim 7.

5 Our decision makes no determination as to whether charge-coupled devices
are well known in the art and commonly used in imaging devices. Rather,
our reversal of the Examiner’s rejection is based solely on the lack of
support provided by the rejection. We note, however, that Choe refers to
well-known cameras, including “a low-light charge-coupled device (CCD)
camera.” Choe ¶ 21.
Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467, B2

8
Claims 12–14
Claims 12–14 each depend from claim 1. Appellant relies on the
unpersuasive arguments presented with respect to claim 1 for the
patentability of claims 12–14. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant provides additional
contentions for claim 14. Id.
Claim 14 recites “an eyeshield disposed on the eyepiece end, wherein
a length of the eyeshield in a long axis direction is at least 30 mm longer
than a length of the eyepiece lens.” The Examiner determines that the
ranges are obvious as a matter of design choice, as well as routine
optimization. Final Act. 9.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s optimization reasoning.
Appellant addresses only whether design choice is appropriate with respect
to the features of claim 14, alleging only that “the user can use the electronic
telescope of the present application with glasses, and the eyeshield can
simultaneously cover the user’s eyes without light leakage,” so that “[e]ven
if the user is nearsighted with 2.0 diopters or farsighted with 2.0 diopters, he
can still use the electronic telescope directly and comfortably.” Appeal Br.
11.
The Examiner responds that “[t]hese features [(i.e., the alleged
benefits)] are not disclosed and amount to attorney argument unsupported by
the original disclosure” and “[t]here is no criticality for the claimed feature.”
Ans. 13.
In this instance, the Examiner has the better position. There is no
discussion in the Specification of the problem alleged by Appellant, nor does
Appellant provide any other evidence regarding this alleged “problem.” We
Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467, B2

9
are not apprised of error in the rejection of claim 14 both for this reason, and
because Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s optimization rationale.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further recites “an adjusting
wheel configured to adjust a focus of the lens module, and the adjusting
wheel is disposed on a bottom of the main body.” The Examiner finds that
“Gebelein discloses the use of an adjustment wheel 102 to adjust the focus
of a lens module.” Final Act. 9. The Examiner reasons that “[i]t would have
been obvious to have placed a focusing adjustment wheel on the bottom of
the main body of Chen’s telescope in order to provide a convenient location
by which the user could use a thumb to adjust the focus of the lens module.”
Id. at 9–10.
We are not apprised of Examiner error because Appellant does not
address the Examiner’s rejection. See Appeal Br. 12. Instead, as the
Examiner notes (Ans. 13–14), Appellant provides attorney argument about
alleged waterproof functionality of its design (Appeal Br. 12).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to rejection claims 1, 3–6, and 8–14 is
affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 7 is reversed.
Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467, B2

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–10,
12–14
103 Chen, Bellefuil,
Cornalba, Choe,
Fukumoto,
Watanabe, Kim
1, 3–6,
8–10, 12–14
7
11 103 Chen, Bellefuil,
Cornalba, Choe,
Fukumoto,
Watanabe, Kim,
Gebelein
11
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 8–14 7

REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED IN PART

Appeal 2021-004463
Reexamination Control 90/014,443
Patent 10,466,467, B2

11
PL Initials:
cdc

For Appellant:
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033

Third Party:
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE, FOURTH FLOOR,
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176