Yehuda Binder

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2020

15002425 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
15/002,425 01/21/2016 Yehuda BINDER BINDER-006-US8 1044
131926 7590 03/27/2020
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
03/27/2020 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 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JASON J. CHUNG, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, 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 finally reject claims 2–53. Final Act. 1. Claim 1 is
cancelled. 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 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to the control of a display using face detection
and/or gesture recognition. Control of the display includes powering the
display on and off, rotating the display between a horizontal orientation and
a vertical orientation, and tilting the display. Claim 2, reproduced below, is
the only independent claim and illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
2. A device for affecting an illumination of a display in
response to face detection, the device comprising:
a single enclosure, and in said single enclosure;
a display having a screen for visually presenting
information;
a digital camera for capturing an image in a digital data
form;
an image processor coupled to said digital camera for
receiving the image and for detecting a human face in
the image; and
a second processor and firmware or software executable
by said second processor, said second processor being coupled
to said image processor and to said display,
wherein said second processor is operative to control the
illumination level of said screen in response to the detection of,
or the absence of, a face in the image.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wilson et al. US 2004/0189720 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Kato et al. US 2005/0084141 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
Cho et al. US 2006/0067367 A1 Mar. 30, 2006
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
3
Trovato US 2006/0071135 A1 Apr. 6, 2006
Xu et al. US 2007/0126884 A1 June 7, 2007
Binder et al. US 2007/0173202 A1 July 26, 2007
Underkoffler et al. US 7,598,942 B2 Oct. 6, 2009
Kitaura US 2007/0132728 June 14, 2007

REJECTIONS
Claims 2–15, 25, and 30–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Trovato in view of Xu.
Claims 16–20 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Trovato in view of Xu in further view of Kato.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Trovato in view of Xu in view of Kato further in view of Underkoffler.
Claims 23, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Trovato in view of Xu in further view of Wilson.
Claim 24 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Trovato in view of Xu in further view of Kitaura.
Claims 28, 29, 35, 45, and 50–52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Trovato in view of Xu in further view of
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art.
Claims 36–44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Trovato in view of Xu in view of Appellant’s Admitted
Prior Art in further view of Binder.
Claims 47–49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Trovato in view of Xu in view of Appellant’s Admitted
Prior Art in further view of Cho.
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
4
Claims 46 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Trovato in view of Xu in view of Appellant’s Admitted
Prior Art in further view of Wilson.
OPINION
I. Claims 2–15, 25, and 30–34
With respect to claims 2–15, 25, and 30–34, Appellant argues claims
2–6, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 31 as a group, claims 7–9 as a group, claim 11
separately, claim 13 separately, claim 25 separately, claim 30 separately, and
claims 32–34 as a group. Accordingly, we select independent claim 2 as
representative of the group to which it pertains, claim 7 as representative of
the group to which it pertains, and claim 32 as representative of the group to
which it pertains. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
a. Claims 2–6, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 31
In a first argument, Appellant argues that modifying Trovato with Xu
“changes the principle of operation” of Trovato, Trovato “teaches away”
from the combination, and there would be no reason to combine Trovato and
Xu. Appeal Br. 4–6. Appellant reasons that Trovato’s principle of operation
is based on “mechanical rotation of a motor that is external to the display”
while Xu “relates to electrical control (of illumination) internal of the
display” and Trovato’s principle of operation would be modified if
combined with Xu. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant additionally reasons that
Trovato only responds to the determined position of the detected element,
and, as result, “teaches away” from having display illumination controlled in
response to the detection of the element. Appeal Br. 5, 6. Appellant
additionally reasons that Trovato’s focus is to position a display screen for
optimal viewing and controlling illumination of a screen degrades viewing
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
5
of the screen, and, thus, Trovato “teaches away” from the combination.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellant also reasons that one with ordinary skill in the art
would not combine Trovato and Xu because they “are each self-contained
and independently operate effectively.” Appeal Br. 5.
In a second argument, Appellant argues that the rationale for
combining Trovato and Xu is improper. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant reasons
that there is a substantial difference between Trovato’s display control based
on determining a position of a detected element and Xu’s display control
based on the detection of the element, the “rationale provides no link to the
present application,” and the “rationale is not relevant.” Appeal Br. 6, 7.
In response, the Examiner finds that “Appellant provides nothing
more than conjecture as to why or how the principle operation of Trovato is
changed, by adding the desirable power saving techniques of Xu” and that
“[A]ppellant has failed to provide any teaching of Trovato that prevents
Xu’s control of the illumination level of the display (a display which notably
both references contain).” Ans. 2. Also, the Examiner finds, “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the device of Trovato
responds to both the detection and position of the object within the image.”
Ans. 2, 3 (emphasis omitted). Further, the Examiner finds that “[c]ontrolling
the illumination of the display (e.g., to turn off the display when no user is
detected) serves two functions: 1) conservation of power and 2) allows the
conservation of power to occur without a physical touching of the display—
as stated—and wholly consisted with Trovato.” Ans. 3. The Examiner also
finds “nothing in Trovato prevents the display from controlling the
illumination level in response to no user being detected” and Trovato’s
paragraph 55 “recognizes that there are times that no user is present to
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
6
interact with the device, however, falls short of discussing the display’s
illumination levels.” Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner has the initial burden to set forth the basis for any
rejection so as to put the patent Applicant on notice of the reasons why the
Applicant is not entitled to a patent on the claim scope that he seeks — the
so-called “prima facie case.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992). An Appellant may attempt to overcome an Examiner’s rejection on
appeal to the Board by submitting arguments and/or evidence to show that
the Examiner made an error in either (1) an underlying finding of fact upon
which the final conclusion was based, or (2) the reasoning used to reach the
legal conclusion. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The panel then reviews the rejection for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445; see also Frye, 94 USPQ2d
at 1075. Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case
of obviousness. Trovato and Xu are both directed to providing control of a
display based on a detected face. Final Act. 2. Based on our review of
Trovato and Xu, nothing in these references precludes their combination.
Further, we agree with the Examiner that combining Trovato with Xu would
be desirable because Xu at least adds “power saving techniques” and does so
“without physically touching the display.” Final Act. 15; Ans. 2, 3. When
the Examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden shifts
to Appellant to set rebut that prima facie case, through arguments and/or
evidence. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692. We are not persuaded
by Appellant’s rebuttal arguments, and Appellant has not provided any
persuasive rebuttal evidence. Moreover, and notably, Appellant has not filed
a Reply Brief rebutting the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
7
Examiner’s Answer, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–
15, 25, 30, and 32–34.
Appellant does not separately argue dependent claim 31.
Accordingly, this claim falls with representative independent claim 2, from
which it depends.

b. Claims 7–9
Appellant again argues Trovato “teaches away” from the combination
because Trovato’s focus is to position a display screen for optimal viewing
and by controlling illumination of a screen, as Xu teaches, Trovato’s optimal
viewing would be degraded. Id. at 7, 8.
In response, the Examiner again references Trovato’s paragraph 55.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s rebuttal arguments, and
Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal evidence. Moreover, and
notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief rebutting the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s Answer. Therefore, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7–9.
c. Claims 11 and 13
For claim 11, Appellant argues that Xu’s paragraph 48 “is silent
regarding any time measuring of time [sic] relating to detecting of a face,
and in particular regarding any action in response to such timed detection.”
Appeal Br. 8. Similarly, for claim 13, Appellant argues that “reaction”
recited in Xu’s paragraph 48 is unspecified and, thus, Xu’s paragraph 48 “is
silent . . . regarding any timing of such detection.” Appeal Br. 8, 9.
In response, the Examiner finds, for claim 11, that the “first time
period” of claim 11 corresponds to “the time period” in which the face has
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
8
left the image and returns, thus preventing the device form entering the
power savings mode and “preventing the illumination lower and/or power
off” and, for claim 13, that the “second time period” of claim 13 corresponds
to a time period, after the first time period, in which a face leaves the image
and returns as in the first time period. Final Act. 16; see also Ans. 5. Also,
the Examiner finds, for both claims 11 and 13, that the “decision making 120
module 120 of Xu makes determinations based on the face detection and
recognition, or absence thereof” and “when an object (face) is detected to be
absent from the image, the power savings mode begins to reduce the
brightness (illumination) and eventually power off the display.” Ans. 5.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s rebuttal arguments, and
Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal evidence. Moreover, and
notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief rebutting the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s Answer. Therefore, Appellant
has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of
obviousness, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11 and 13.
d. Claim 25
Appellant argues that “the Action fails to explain any motivation or
rationale” for modifying Trovato’s display, which is “used for displaying
locally captured and transmitted images,” with Xu’s display, which receives
television channels from “external and remote television stations.” Appeal
Br. 8. Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s rationale, which relates
to power conservation, “is not relevant.” Appeal Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner finds that nothing in Trovato precludes
Trovato from receiving and displaying television channels and nothing in Xu
precludes Xu from displaying locally transmitted and captured images. Ans.
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
9
6. Also, the Examiner finds that the conservation of power features of Xu
are “clear functional advantages Xu provides” for displays, including
televisions. Ans. 6.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. We agree with the Examiner that Trovato and Xu are both
directed providing control of a display and both are capable of receiving
information to be displayed through a “channel.” Ans. 6. Based on our
review of Trovato and Xu, nothing in these references precludes their
combination, as discussed above. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments, and Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal
evidence. Moreover, and notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief
rebutting the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s
Answer. Therefore, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or conclusion of obviousness, and we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 25.
e. Claim 30
Appellant argues Xu “is silent about any location of any detected
object in general, and location of a human face in the image.” Appeal Br.
10.
In response, the Examiner finds that Xu’s face detection, as described
in Xu’s paragraph 48, indeed relies on facial position. Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner. Xu determines when a viewer is “in
front of the TV 102 for a certain amount of time.” Xu, paragraph 48. Thus,
Xu locates a face in the image. Therefore, Appellant has not shown error in
the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness, and we affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 30.
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
10
f. Claims 32–34
Appellant initially argues, “the Xu reference is silent regarding any
network medium, or any transceiver.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant
additionally argues, “[t]he Action fails to explain any motivation or rationale
for modifying the display in the Trovato reference to include communication
related functionalities” and “[t]he rationale provided for combining with the
Xu reference . . . is not relevant for combining any communication related
functionality to the Trovato reference.” Appeal Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner finds that controller module 108 serves as a
network medium because it facilitates communication between the decision
making module 120, which serves as the claimed second processor and
transceiver, and camera 110. Final Act. 17; Ans. 6. Also, the Examiner
finds, “One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need for the
video stream of the camera to be sent over some type of ‘network medium.’”
Ans. 6. Thus, the Examiner concludes one with ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine Trovato with Xu because of Xu’s
power conservation features. Ans. 7.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Further, Appellant has not identified any element in Claim 32
that precludes the Examiner’s findings. Moreover, we do not find the
Examiner’s interpretation unsupported or unreasonable. Thus, as noted
above, the burden shifts to Appellant to rebut that prima facie case.
However, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s rebuttal arguments, and
Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal evidence. Moreover, and
notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief rebutting the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s Answer. Therefore, Appellant
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
11
has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of
obviousness, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 32–34.
II. Claims 16–20 and 22
With respect to claims 16–20 and 22, Appellant argues claims 16–20
and 22 as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 16 as representative of the
group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
For representative claim 16, Appellant argues that Kato is not
combinable with Trovato because Kato does not control a device (i.e., Kato
is not analogous to Trovato). Appeal Br. 11, 12. Appellant further argues
that Trovato teaches away from the combination because, in Trovato, both of
the operator’s hands are in use by the operator while the display is operating
(i.e., the operator’s hands cannot be used to perform a hand gesture because
they are occupied). Appeal Br. 12, 13. Moreover, Appellant argues that
Kato teaches that detection accuracy is increased “as a result of using an
object attribute, and not due to any detection of an additional element.”
Appeal Br. 13.
In response, the Examiner finds that Kato is directed towards
improving object detection accuracy and that Kato does so by detecting
“certain objects” (e.g., hands) and “multiple objects” (e.g., hands and face).
Ans. 7, 8. The Examiner further finds that Kato is combinable with Trovato
and Xu because Trovato and Xu already both teach controlling a display
based on object detection, and Trovato additionally teaches that the device
may be controlled based on “movement of the user’s hands.” Ans. 7. The
Examiner further finds that Kato relies on multiple objects to improve
detection accuracy, and further that Kato, because of the way object
detection is performed in Kato, would improve the object detection accuracy
in Trovato and Xu. Ans. 7, 8. The Examiner finds, “Nothing in Trovato
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
12
prevents the use of additional detection capabilities (as in Xu and Kato) to
improve upon the device.” Ans. 8. Thus, the Examiner finds that adding
Kato to Trovato and Xu has clear advantages. Id.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. We agree with the Examiner in that Trovato and Xu are both
directed providing control of a display based on a detected face and Trovato
also provides detecting hands. Kato is also directed towards object
detection, but Kato further teaches how multiple objects, including hands
and faces can be detected accurately. Based on our review of Trovato, Xu,
and Kato, nothing in these references precludes their combination. Further,
we agree with the Examiner that combining Trovato with Xu would be
desirable because Xu at least adds “power saving techniques” and does so
“without physically touching the display” and that additionally combining
Kato would be desirable to improve detection accuracy. Final Act. 15, 18;
Ans. 2, 3, 7, 8. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s rebuttal arguments and
Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal evidence. Moreover, and
notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief rebutting the Examiner’s
findings and contentions in the Examiner’s Answer, and we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 16–20 and 22.
III. Claim 21
Appellant argues, “the Underkoffler reference is silent regarding any
remote control in general, and thus . . . is not relevant to any combination.”
Appeal Br. 14. Appellant additionally argues that Underkoffler and Trovato
both involve “remote applications,” but are in “remote fields” and, as a
result, are “not analogous” and that one skilled in the art would not have a
reason to combine these references. Appeal Br. at 15. Appellant reasons
that, inter alia, Underkoffler includes multiple cameras and is directed
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
13
towards controlling a computer system and that Trovato has no need for
increasing inputs and inputs as particular as “finger related gestures.”
Appeal Br. 15, 16. Appellant also argues that Trovato and Underkoffler are
not analogous because they are classified differently. Appeal Br. 15, 16.
In response, the Examiner finds that “Underkoffler also uses object
recognition within images to exact control over a display system.” Ans. 8.
The Examiner finds that that Trovato and Underkoffler are combinable
because they each allow “convenient or better control or visualization of a
device.” Ans. 8. The Examiner also contends that regardless of the type of
display, Trovato and Underkoffler each show a display “being controlled
with image detection technology” and, as a result, “are analogous.” Ans. 8,
9. The Examiner maintains that Underkoffler adds a benefit of increased
user control over the display and increased versatility of the device. Ans. 9;
Final Act. 19. Regarding classification, the Examiner finds that, citing In re
Ellis2, “the Trovato and Underkoffler references share multiple similarities
of structure and function to applicant’s invention.” Ans. 9.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. We agree with the Examiner in that Trovato, Xu, and
Underkoffler are each directed towards providing control of a display based
on object detection. We also agree with the Examiner in that Underkoffler
provides an advantage of additional control over the display and increased
versatility of the display device. Trovato indicates, in paragraphs 2–7, that
prior art display control systems are limited and are inconvenient to the user.
Thus, based on our review, one with ordinary skill in the art would indeed
would have been motivated to combine Underkoffler’s features with Trovato

2 In re Ellis, 476 F.2d. 1370, 1372 (CCPA 1973).
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
14
and Xu. Further, based on our review of Trovato, Xu, and Underkoffler,
nothing in these references precludes their combination. We also agree with
the Examiner that the similarities in structure and function between Trovato,
Underkoffler, and Appellant’s invention show these reference are analogous.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s rebuttal arguments and Appellant has
not provided any persuasive rebuttal evidence. Moreover, and notably,
Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief rebutting the Examiner’s findings and
contentions in the Examiner’s Answer, and we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 21.
IV. Claims 23, 26, and 27
With respect to claims 23, 26, and 27, Appellant argues claims 23, 26,
and 27 as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 23 as representative of the
group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues that the device of Trovato teaches away from being
hand-held because it is “stationary” and moved only by a “motor.” Appeal
Br. 16, 17. Appellant additionally argues that changing Trovato’s stationary
and motor-controlled device into a hand-held device would change
Trovato’s “principle of operation” because with hand-held devices “the user
is holding the device.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant additionally argues that
Trovato already provides controlling a display according to user detection
and that there would be no motivation to combine Wilson with Trovato.
Appeal Br. 18.
In response, the Examiner finds, “nothing in Trovato’s disclosure
states the device cannot be rotated by the user, nor that the device cannot be
moved or carried (e.g., ‘hand held’), nor that it is desirable to prevent
mobility to the system.” Ans. 10. The Examiner also contends that claim 23
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
15
allows for a device that can be hand-held instead of requiring for “the device
to be held.” Ans. 10.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. We agree with the Examiner in that nothing in claim 23
requires a user to be holding the device. Instead, claim 23 requires “said
device is hand-held.” Further, it is true that “[n]othing in Trovato’s
disclosure states that device cannot be rotated by the user, nor that the device
cannot be moved, carried or held by the pole to which it is attached . . . nor
that it is desirable to prevent mobility to the system from one place of
operation to another.” Ans. 10. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments, and Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal
evidence. Moreover, and notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief
rebutting the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s
Answer, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 23, 26, and 27.
V. Claim 24
Appellant does not separately argue dependent claim 24.
Accordingly, this claim falls with independent claim 2, from which it
depends.
VI. Claims 28, 29, 35, 45, and 50–52
With respect to claims 28, 29, 35, 45, and 50–52, Appellant argues
claim 35 separately, claim 45 separately, and claims 50–52 as a group. We
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
16
select claim 50 as representative of the group to which it pertains. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 28 and 29.
Accordingly, these claims fall with representative independent claim 2, from
which they depend (directly or indirectly).
a. Claim 35
Appellant argues that because an Office Action in a co-pending
application, “having the same specification as the present application,”
required a restriction between an embodiment including wired
communication and an embodiment including wireless communication, the
Office admits that wireless communication is patentably distinct from wired
communication. Appeal Br. 18, 19. Appellant additionally argues that since
Trovato and Xu avoid using a remote control to control their respective
displays, that both references teach away from “any remote communication
in general.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant further argues that the proposed
substitution is improper because it substitutes one element for a similar
element with additional features and that modifying the Trovato reference
with the similar element requires “major modifications.” Appeal Br. 19.
Appellant also argues that the proposed modification is just a combination of
known elements and that such a combination “is an exercise in
impermissible hindsight.” Appeal Br. 20. Appellant further argues that
“Trovato does not even disclose any receipt of information from any
external source.” Appeal Br. 20. Moreover, Appellant argues that since
Trovato and Xu are directed towards “stationary, non-mobile and non-
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
17
portable” devices, one with ordinary skill would not be inclined to “embed a
wireless interface.” Appeal Br. 21 (emphasis omitted).
In response, the Examiner finds that the co-pending application cited
by Appellant is unrelated to the instant application and does not “bear [sic]
any weight here.” Ans. 11. The Examiner also finds “Appellant cites no
support for the argument that the restriction requirement creates a legal
presumption of patentability as against the prior art” in a separate
prosecution. Ans. 11. The Examiner additionally finds that in order for
Trovato and Xu to “operate as a detection system, there must be
communication between each component” and, as result, “the processor
which controls the display . . . requires a receiver or transceiver to
accomplish this task [and such] information is sent over a network medium.”
Ans. 11, 12. Moreover, the Examiner finds that nothing in either Trovato or
Xu requires for those respective devices to be stationary, non-mobile, non-
portable and prevents data “from being transferred wirelessly.” Ans. 12.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Thus, as noted above, the burden shifts to Appellant to rebut
that prima facie case. However, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments and Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal
evidence. Moreover, and notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief
rebutting the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s
Answer, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 35.
b. Claim 45
Appellant argues that because an Office Action in a co-pending
application, “having the same specification as the present application,”
required a restriction between an embodiment including wired
communication and an embodiment including wireless communication, the
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
18
Office admits that wired communication is patentably distinct from other
communication. Appeal Br. 21, 22. Appellant additionally argues that since
Trovato and Xu avoid using a remote control to control their respective
displays, that both reference teach away from “any remote communication in
general.” Appeal Br. 22. Appellant further argues that the proposed
substitution is improper because it substitutes one element for a similar
element with additional features and that modifying the Trovato reference
with the similar element requires “major modifications.” Appeal Br. 22.
Appellant also argues that the proposed modification is just a combination of
known elements and that such a combination “is an exercise in
impermissible hindsight.” Appeal Br. 23. Appellant further argues that
“Trovato does not even disclose any receipt of information from any
external source.” Appeal Br. 23. Moreover, Appellant argues that since
Trovato and Xu are directed towards “stationary, non-mobile and non-
portable” devices, one with ordinary skill would not be inclined to “embed a
wired interface.” Appeal Br. 24 (emphasis omitted).
In response, the Examiner finds that the co-pending application cited
by Appellant is unrelated to the instant application and does not “bear [sic]
any weight here.” Ans. 13. The Examiner also finds “Appellant cites no
support for the argument that the restriction requirement creates a legal
presumption of patentability as against the prior art.” Ans. 13. The
Examiner additionally finds that in order for Trovato and Xu to “operate as a
detection system, there must be communication between each component”
and, as result, “the processor which controls the display . . . requires a
receiver or transceiver to accomplish this task [and such] information is sent
over a network medium.” Ans. 13, 14. Moreover, the Examiner finds that
nothing in either Trovato or Xu require for those respective devices to be
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
19
stationary, non-mobile, non-portable and prevents data “from being
transferred wirelessly.” Ans. 14.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Thus, as noted above, the burden shifts to Appellant to rebut
that prima facie case. However, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments, and Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal
evidence. Moreover, and notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief
rebutting the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s
Answer, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 45.
c. Claims 50–52
Appellant argues “[t]he Action provides no rationale or explanation
regarding combining with AAPA.” Appeal Br. 24. Appellant further
argues, that paragraph 116 of the present application, which was relied upon
by the Examiner show AAPA, is “silent about any carrying power and data
in the same cable.” Appeal Br. 24, 25. Appellant further argues that Figure
7 of the present application, which corresponds to paragraph 116, shows a
connector for power that is different from a connector for data. Appeal Br.
25. Appellant additionally argues that AAPA does not disclose a camera
connected to a cable carrying both power and data. Appeal Br. 25.
In response, the Examiner maintains that cable 26 of Figure 7 [sic 8]
of the present application is a well-known cable that carries both power and
data to and from the camera.3 Ans. 14.

3 Additionally, we note that the use of USB (Universal Serial Bus)
communication for data and power was well known since the 2000’s. See
Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 2.0, April 27, 2000, Section
4.3.1.
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
20
We agree with the Examiner and, therefore, affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 50–52.
VII. Claims 36–44
With respect to claims 36–44, Appellant argues claims 36–38, 39, 41,
and 43 as a group, claim 40 separately, claim 42 separately, and claim 44
separately. Accordingly, we select claim 36 as representative of the group to
which it pertains. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
a. Claims 36–38, 39, 41, and 43
Appellant first argues that the Binder reference is not analogous to
any of the other prior art references relied upon by the Examiner, namely
Trovato and Xu. Appeal Br. 25, 26. Appellant subsequently argues that the
rationale provided by the Examiner for combining Binder with Trovato, Xu,
and AAPA is insufficient because “the rationale provides no link to the
present application” and “the rationale amounts to nothing more than an
unsupported and unexplained conclusory statement.” Appeal Br. 26, 27.
In response, the Examiner finds that Appellant has not recognized that
the rejection was based on Trovato, Xu, AAPA, and Binder and that
Trovato, Xu, and AAPA are all directed towards object detection devices
that include a camera and provides communication between the camera and
other components of the device. Ans. 15. In this regard, the Examiner
further finds that Binder is analogous to the existing combination because
Binder is also related to communication, but specifies certain types of
communication. Ans. 15. As a result, the Examiner finds the combination is
proper. Ans. 15. Moreover, the Examiner finds that Binder increases the
versatility of the device taught by the combination “by reducing the need for
wired components, which can free up the required space and size of the
device.” Ans. 15.
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
21
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Thus, as noted above, the burden shifts to Appellant to rebut
that prima facie case. However, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments, and Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal
evidence. Moreover, and notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief
rebutting the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s
Answer, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 36–38, 39, 41,
and 43.
b. Claim 40
Appellant argues that the rationale provided by the Examiner for
combining Binder with Trovato, Xu, and AAPA is insufficient because “the
rationale amounts to nothing more than an unsupported and unexplained
conclusory statement” and “the rationale provides no link to these claims.”
Appeal Br. 27, 28.
In response, the Examiner finds that Binder increases the versatility of
the device taught by the combination “by reducing the need for wired
components, which can free up the required space and size of the device.”
Ans. 16.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Thus, as noted above, the burden shifts to Appellant to rebut
that prima facie case. However, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments, and Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal
evidence. Moreover, and notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief
rebutting the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s
Answer, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40.
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
22
c. Claims 42 and 44
For these claims, Appellant argues that the rationale provided by the
Examiner for combining Binder with Trovato, Xu, and AAPA is insufficient
because “the rationale amounts to nothing more than an unsupported and
unexplained conclusory statement” and “the rationale provides no link to
these claims.” Appeal Br. 28–30. Appellant additionally argues that the
Office Action has admitted the non-obviousness of using IEEE standards.
Appeal Br. 29, 30
In response, the Examiner finds that Binder increases the versatility of
the device taught by the combination “by reducing the need for wired
components, which can free up the required space and size of the device.”
Ans. 16. The Examiner also clarifies that the IEEE standards Appellants are
referring to were “not applied to Binder, but another reference Cho.” Ans.
16.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Thus, as noted above, the burden shifts to Appellant to rebut
that prima facie case. However, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments, and Appellant has not provided any rebuttal evidence.
Moreover, and notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief rebutting the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s Answer, and we
affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 42 and 44.
VIII. Claims 47–49
With respect to Claims 47–49, Appellant argues claims 47–49 as a
group. Accordingly, we select claim 47 as representative of the group to
which it pertains. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant first argues that the Cho reference is not analogous to any
of the other prior art references relied upon by the Examiner, namely
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
23
Trovato and Xu. Appeal Br. 31. Appellant also argues that Cho was applied
in isolation and is not combinable with Trovato and Xu because they are
“each self-contained and independently operate.” Appeal Br. 31. Appellant
further argues that “[a]dding a LAN interface clearly changes the Trovato
system principle of operation, function and structure.” Appeal Br. 32.
Appellant also argues that there is motivation to modify Trovato because
“Trovato is silent about any communication signals in general.” Appeal Br.
32. Moreover, Appellant argues that Trovato and Cho are not combinable
because they are classified differently. Appeal Br. 32.
Appellant subsequently argues that the rationale provided by the
Examiner is not a rationale at all because Trovato does not require
“operability” with other devices, is not based on facts gleaned from the prior
art references relied upon, and provides no link to the present application.
Appeal Br. 33, 34.
In response, the Examiner finds that Trovato, Xu, and AAPA are all
directed towards object detection devices that include a camera and provide
communication between the camera and other components of the device.
Ans. 16, 17. The Examiner further finds that Cho is analogous to the
existing combination because Cho is also related to communication, but
specifies certain types of communication. Ans. 17. The Examiner finds that
Appellant has argued non-obviousness by pointing to features not present
within Cho. Ans. 17. The Examiner further finds that Trovato and Xu do
not provide the claimed communication mediums and that AAPA and Cho
provide these mediums. Ans. 17. The Examiner maintains that one of skill
in the art would not find that the principle operation of the devices of
Trovato and Xu would be changed by the addition of AAPA and/or Cho.
Ans. 17. Regarding classification, the Examiner finds, again citing In re
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
24
Ellis4, that “the Trovato and Cho references share multiple similarities of
structure and function to applicant’s invention.” Ans. 18.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Thus, as noted above, the burden shifts to Appellant to rebut
that prima facie case. However, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments, and Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal
evidence. Moreover, and notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief
rebutting the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s
Answer, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 47–49.
IX. Claims 46 and 53
a. Claim 46
Appellant argues that Wilson is non-analogous and teaches away from
the combination of Trovato and Xu because it is inconvenient to use a USB
cable. Appeal Br. 34, 35. Appellant additionally argues that it would
require “major modifications” to modify Trovato with Wilson and such
modifications would not be a simple substitution. Appeal Br. 35. Instead,
Appellant further argues the substitution would not “be considered trivial.”
Appeal Br. 36.
In response, the Examiner finds that Trovato and Wilson are
analogous because both Trovato and Wilson use object detection to control a
display. Ans. 19. The Examiner additionally finds that Wilson teaches that
cameras are connected to the device through USB and that control can be
conveniently exerted over the display through the use of the cameras. Ans.
19. The Examiner maintains that “substituting the USB network

4 In re Ellis, 476 F.2d. at 1372.
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
25
connections for that of the wired connection of AAPA would be readily
apparent and routine for one of ordinary skill in the art.”5 Ans. 20.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Thus, as noted above, the burden shifts to Appellant to rebut
that prima facie case. However, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
rebuttal arguments, and Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal
evidence. Moreover, and notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief
rebutting the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s
Answer, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 46.
b. Claim 53
Appellant argues that Wilson is non-analogous and teaches away from
the combination because Trovato and Xu because it is inconvenient. Appeal
Br. 36. Appellant additionally argues that Wilson is silent regarding
carrying power in addition data over the USB cable. Appeal. Br. 37.
In response, the Examiner maintains that Trovato and Wilson are
analogous because both Trovato and Wilson use object detection to control a
display. Ans. 20. The Examiner additionally maintains that Wilson teaches
that cameras are connected to the device through USB and that control can
be conveniently exerted over the display through the use of the cameras.
Ans. 20. Additionally, the Examiner finds that the USB 2.0 standard, which
was in effect at the time of Wilson, provides “dedicated wires for power and
data to transmit simultaneously.” Ans. 20.
Based on our review, the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. We agree with the Examiner that the USB 2.0 standard

5 We further note that the AAPA suggest “cable 26 (which may contain a
wired or non-wired medium).” (Spec. 16: 30 (emphasis added).)
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
26
provides both power and data can be carried over the same cable. See
Universal Serial Bus Specification, Revision 2.0, April 27, 2000, Section
4.3.1. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s rebuttal arguments, and
Appellant has not provided any persuasive rebuttal evidence. Moreover, and
notably, Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief rebutting the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions in the Examiner’s Answer, and we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 53.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
2–15, 25, 30–34 103 Trovato, Xu 2–15, 25,
30–34

16–20, 22 103 Trovato, Xu,
Kato
16–20, 22
21 103 Trovato, Xu,
Underkoffler
21
23, 26, 27 103 Trovato, Xu,
Wilson
23, 26, 27
24 103 Trovato, Xu,
Kitaura
24
28, 29, 35, 45, 50–
52
103 Trovato, Xu,
Applicant’s
Admitted Prior
Art
28, 29, 35,
45, 50–52

36–44 103 Trovato, Xu,
Applicant’s
Admitted Prior
Art, Binder
36–44
47–49 103 Trovato, Xu,
Applicant’s
Admitted Prior
Art, Cho
47–49
46, 53 103 Trovato, Xu,
Applicant’s
46, 53
Appeal 2018-006174
Application 15/002,425
27
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
Admitted Prior
Art, Wilson
Overall Outcome 2–53
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