Seyedmansour Moinzadeh et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2020

2020000241 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
15/003,722 01/21/2016 Seyedmansour Moinzadeh 1000B-031 1156
132873 7590 10/29/2020
NovoTechIP International PLLC
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite #1025
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2020 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):
admin@novotechip.com
akhlaghi@novotechip.com
docketing@novotechip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SEYEDMANSOUR MOINZADEH,
SEYEDEH RASTA MOEINZADEH, and
SEYEDEH ROSHA MOEINZADEH
____________________

Appeal 2020-000241
Application 15/003,722
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14. Appeal Br. 11, 18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Seyedmansour Moinzadeh.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000241
Application 15/003,722

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. An electronic magnifier comprising:
[A.] a camera capturing an image from a document or a
picture;
[B.] an image processing module for receiving the captured
image, the image processing module including
[i.] a processor for
[a.] receiving at least one input from a user and
[b.] modifying the captured image based on the at
least one input via a signal conditioning
component,
the image processing module also including
[ii.] an amplifier for
[a.] amplifying the modified image and
[b.] generating a composite video output including a
magnified image based on the captured image;
[C.] a USB converter module for receiving the composite
video output, the USB converter module including an
analog to digital converter for converting the [] received
composite video output into a digital signal and a USB
converter for converting the digital signal to a USB
output; and
[D.] a WiFi converter module for receiving the USB output
from the USB converter module, the WiFi converter
module including a transceiver for receiving the USB
output and sending the USB output as a WiFi output to a
device having a display monitor for displaying the
magnified image,
[E.] wherein the amplifier amplifies the modified image by
increasing a power of the modified image.

Appeal 2020-000241
Application 15/003,722

3
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Salow US 2012/0188345 A1 July 26, 2012
Moinzadeh US 2013/0088582 A1 Apr. 11, 2013
Fisher US 2014/0269425 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Altman US 2014/0355446 A1 Dec. 4, 2014

This Panel cites the following additional references:
Name Reference Date
Winser US 2007/0033542 A1 Feb. 8, 2007
Garud US 2011/0122242 A1 May 26, 2011
Dent US 2012/0147246 A1 June 14, 2012
Tanabe US 2014/0267676 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Schweitzer US 2017/0068084 A1 Mar. 9, 2017
REJECTIONS3
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 and 12–14, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Salow, Altman, and
Moinzadeh. Final Act. 9–17.

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-000241
Application 15/003,722

4
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are determinative as to this
rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the
merit of the § 103 rejection of claims 2–10 and 12–14 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Salow, Altman, Moinzadeh, and
Fisher. Final Act. 17.
The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are determinative as to
this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merit of the § 103 rejection of claim 11 further herein.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss
are determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s
other contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
A.1.
As reproduced supra, parts B and E of claim 1 require (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
[B.] an image processing module for receiving the captured
image, the image processing module including
[i.] a processor for
[a.] receiving at least one input from a user and
[b.] modifying the captured image based on the at
least one input via a signal conditioning
component,
Appeal 2020-000241
Application 15/003,722

5
the image processing module also including
[ii.] an amplifier for
[a.] amplifying the modified image and
[b.] generating a composite video output including a
magnified image based on the captured image;
. . .
[E.] wherein the amplifier amplifies the modified image by
increasing a power of the modified image.

A.2.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that the features of parts B
and E are taught in paragraph 20 and Figures 1, 3, and 6 of Salow. Final
Act. 10, 12.
A.3.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
[Salow at] paragraph [20] teaches that the processor is
connected to controls of the image recording device, among
which are zoom lens controls. First, being connected to controls
of the image recording device is not the same as the image
processing module being configured to receive the captured
image and generate a magnified image based on the captured
image. Second, teaching that the image recording device
includes zoom lens controls suggests that the recording device
can zoom into the view it intends to capture to record a close-up
image. This does not teach receiving a captured image and then
magnifying the captured image. Stated differently, the zoom
control feature of Salow enables capturing an enlarged imaged
but post capturing no magnification is done to the image.
Appeal Br. 13.
Appeal 2020-000241
Application 15/003,722

6
A.4.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”).
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s
analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately
explain the Examiner’s findings of fact.
We agree with Appellant that “Salow enables capturing an enlarged
imaged but[,] post capturing[,] no magnification is done to the image.”
Appeal Br. 13. We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s argument, that
there is currently insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s
finding that Salow teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious parts B
and E as required by claim 1.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning
to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.
A.5.
From our review of the record, it appears that the Examiner has
overlooked several prior art areas that appear more relevant that the surgical
magnifier prior art before us. First, we recommend that the Examiner
Appeal 2020-000241
Application 15/003,722

7
consider “digital microscope” art by, for example, searching for this term in
the titles and abstracts of patents and published applications. See, e.g.,
Garud (US 2011/0122242 A1), Tanabe (US 2014/0267676 A1), and
Schweitzer (US 2017/0068084 A1). Second, we recommend the Examiner
consider Dent (US 2012/0147246 A1) from the camera art—specifically the
teachings in figure 3 and paragraphs 23–24 related to zooming in on portions
of a captured image. Third, as to Appellant’s claim 4, we recommend the
Examiner consider Winser (US 2007/0033542 A1) from the image
magnifying art—specifically, the teachings of paragraphs 3–6 related to
zooming in on an image using a slider.

CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–14 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–14 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.

Appeal 2020-000241
Application 15/003,722

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12–14 103 Salow, Altman,
Moinzadeh
1–10, 12–14
11 103 Salow, Altman,
Moinzadeh, Fisher
11
Overall
Outcome

1–14

REVERSED