Yulun Wang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2020

2019005592 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 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.
13/277,449 10/20/2011 Yulun Wang P016X 6553
98471 7590 05/04/2020
InTouch Health
C/O CPA Global
900 2nd Avenue South, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
AMIN, BHAVESH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2020 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):
clambrecht@intouchhealth.com
docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte YULUN WANG, CHARLES S. JORDAN,
JONATHAN SOUTHARD, and
MARCO PINTER
__________

Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, 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, 5–11, 14–20, and 24–27. Claims 2–
4, 12, 13, and 21–23 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as InTouch
Technologies, Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 2, filed Jan. 30, 2019.
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to the field of mobile two-way
teleconferencing.” Spec. 1. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A robot system, comprising:
a robot that has a robot monitor and a robot camera that
captures a robot video image; and,
a remote station that is coupled to said robot, said remote
station includes a visual display and a station camera that
captures a station video image, said visual display
simultaneously displays said robot video image in a first portion
of a first screen field and said station video image in a second
portion of the first screen field, the first screen field being
associated with a first application program, said visual display
displays non-robot information in a second screen field
associated with a second application program, said remote
station allows a user of said remote station to select said non-
robot information for transmission to said robot, wherein said
selected non-robot information is displayed by said robot
monitor and in said first display field of said remote station visual
display.

THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 6–11, 15–20, and 24–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuno (US 5,802,494, issued Sept. 1, 1998),
Jenkins (US 6,597,392 B1, issued July 22, 2003), and Ludwig (US
5,915,091, issued June 22, 1999).
II. Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kuno, Jenkins, Ludwig, and Rivette (US 5,623,679,
issued Apr. 22, 1997).
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Obviousness over Kuno, Jenkins, and Ludwig
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of independent claims 11
and 20 and dependent claims 6–10, 15–19, and 24–27 separate from those
presented for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–11. We select claim 1 as
the representative claim, and claims 6–11, 15–20, and 24–27 stand or fall
with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2018).
In regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kuno discloses a robot
system comprising: (a) a robot that has a robot monitor and a robot camera
(video camera 31a) that captures a robot video image; and (b) a remote
station that is coupled to the robot, in which the remote station includes a
visual display and a station camera that captures a station video image.
Final Act. 42 (citing Kuno 5:15–31, Figs. 3–5); see also Kuno 4:8, Fig. 2B.
The Examiner also finds that Kuno discloses “[t]he information on the
remote station can be transmitted to the robot” and “display[ing] non-robotic
information to the screen of the remote station to be transmitted for display
to the robot.” Id. (citing Kuno 4:30–35, 5:15–31, 24:23–38; Figs. 3–5). The
Examiner acknowledges that Kuno does not disclose “display[ing] a first
and second screen field’s portion of the non-robotic information and robotic
information at the remote station simultaneously and having numerous
different screen fields showing different information on the screen” nor “one
[screen] field show[ing] information directed to images and other screen
fields/windows show[ing] other information which is not image related.” Id.
The Examiner, however, finds that Jenkins discloses “using different

2 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated Jan. 29, 2018.
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

4
windows/screen fields to allow the system to send information between them
and share the information between all the parties.” Final Act. 5 (citing
Jenkins 9:25–33, Fig. 3). Relative to Figure 3 of Jenkins, the Examiner
explains that Jenkins discloses “the image in the image window 306 is sent
to the communications and image capture window 308 for transfer to a
connected party” and that “[t]his shows two different windows/fields being
used by the system to share information/images between parties
simultaneously.” Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the robot system of Kuno to “allow for
the images to be marked up at the remote site and sent to the robot site for
viewing of the patient,” as taught by Jenkins, “for improved communications
between the remote[] sites when having a conference in regards to a
patient’s healthcare.” Id.
The Examiner also acknowledges that Kuno and Jenkins do not
disclose “simultaneously displaying on one screen the video images captured
from the robot and the station and also allowing all the transmission of non-
robotic information between systems from the remote system.” Id. at 6. The
Examiner, however, finds that Ludwig discloses “a screen which displays
multiple video conferencing video feeds as shown in figure 8B where
multiple feeds are shown,” in which “[t]he feed includes the person whom
initiated the conference call and all the participants.” Id. (citing Ludwig
24:5–26). The Examiner also finds that Ludwig discloses “in figure 2B to
have their system allow the users from the remote site to annotate an image
which is non-robotic information and share that image between all the
participants,” such that “[t]he video feed are in one field/window and the
shared non-robot information is in another separate window/field.” Id. The
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

5
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to
modify the robot system of Kuno and Jenkins to have “the screen display
multiple participants when having a conference call in regards to a patient,”
as taught by Ludwig, “to have more than one person being on the system
when talking about a patient and thus allow easier collaboration and
improved patient care.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner further reasons that it
would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to “use of a known technique as
disclosed by Ludwig” in the devices of Kuno and Jenkins “to allow the
sharing of information and annotating of information on a shared platform to
make the sharing and understanding of collaborated information easier.” Id.
at 6–7.
Appellant makes a number of contentions against the references
individually by arguing that:
(1) “Kuno fails to disclose[] that the monitor section displays both the
robot video and the video from the monitor section camera simultaneously”
(Appeal Br. 9);
(2) “Kuno fails to disclose at least the claimed first screen field” (id.);
(3) “Kuno fails to disclose first and second screen fields associated
with first and second application programs and allowing a user to select non-
robot information for transmission to the robot” (id.);
(4) “Kuno in view of Jenkins fails to teach or suggest a display device
that simultaneously displays video from both a remote camera (the robot
camera in Kuno) and a local camera (the monitor section camera of Kuno) in
first and second portions of a first screen field” (id.);
(5) “Jenkins fails teach to [sic] allowing a user to select information
displayed in a second screen field associated with a second application
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

6
program for transmission to the robot and displaying the selected
information on both the robot monitor and in the first screen field of the
remote station” (Appeal Br. 9–10; see also id. at 11 arguing that “Jenkins
does not disclose that the image to be shared is selected in a second screen
field and then displayed in a first screen field where video from both the
local and remote cameras was displayed”); and
(6) “[i]n Ludwig, the snapshot, or portion of the screen that is selected
for sharing, is merely shared with the other use[r]s––it is not also displayed
in the first screen field associated with a different application program and
where the remote and local video images are displayed” and “[t]hus, Ludwig
fails to disclose displaying information selected from a second screen field
in a first screen field that included an image from a remote camera (or robot
camera) in a first portion of the first screen field and an image from a local
camera (or station camera) in a second portion of the first screen field” (id.
at 10; see also Reply Br. 33 (arguing that Ludwig introduces a “Share
window” 211 that is separate from video window 203)).
Corresponding to the above-enumerated contentions:
(1) The Examiner correctly responds that “the prior art of Kuna was
never cited to teach this specific feature and instead the prior art of Ludwig
was relied upon for this teaching,” and “figure 2B [of Ludwig] shows the
users all being able to annotate an image which is shared by the group and
also the prior art shows all of the users viewing video feeds from all of the
participants cameras” (Ans. 114; see also Ludwig 24:13–16 disclosing “for

3 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed July 15, 2019.
4 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated May 15, 2019.
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

7
multi-party calls, the screen includes a video mosaic containing a live video
picture of each of the conference participants (including CMW
[(collaborative multimedia workstation)] user’s own picture), as shown, for
example, in FIG. 8B”);
(2) The Examiner correctly responds that “the prior art of Kuna was
not relied upon for this teaching” and “[i]nstead, the prior art of Jenkins was
relied upon for this teaching,” in which “Jenkin[s,] in column 7 lines 13–27,
[discloses that] the records window/field 302 is a different window/field
where all the captured video images from the capture device 100 is stored
and shared between the participants” and “Jenkins in column 9 lines 25–33
describes their system using different windows/screen fields to allow the
system to send information between all the participants on the
teleconference call” (Ans. 11–12);
(3) The Examiner correctly responds that “the prior art of Kuna was
not relied upon for this teaching” and instead, Jenkins meets this limitation
as discussed above for contention (2) (id. at 12);
(4) The Examiner correctly responds that: neither the “prior art[] of
Kuna nor Jenkins were relied upon for the teaching of having a single screen
showing multiple video feeds simultaneously” but that “[t]he prior of
Ludwig was relied upon for this feature” (id. at 13). The Examiner explains
that “Ludwig does disclose their system allowing the host and multiple
user[s] being able to share video feeds as shown in at least figures 2A–B and
8C,” in which one field “shows a video of all the participants
simultaneously” (id.);
(5) As noted supra, the Examiner relies on Kuna, rather than Jenkins,
for disclosing that “[t]he information on the remote station can be
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

8
transmitted to the robot” and “display[ing] non-robotic information to the
screen of the remote station to be transmitted for display to the robot.” Final
Act. 4 (citing Kuna 4:30–35, 5:15–31, 24:23–38; Figs. 3–5). As also noted
supra concerning contentions (2) and (3), the Examiner finds that Jenkins
discloses allowing a user to select information displayed in a second screen
field for transmission to a connecting party and displaying the selected
information on a first screen field of the remote station. Figure 3 of Jenkins
is reproduced below:

Figure 3 of Jenkins “is an illustration of a Graphical User Interface (‘GUI’) .
. . for receiving input and for displaying data.” Jenkins 2:23–25. Notably,
relative to Figure 3, Jenkins discloses that
[t]he image communications functions of the GUI 300 is carried
out through the “Export Image” key 330, which selects the
current image in the imaging window 306 and sends it to the
communications-and-image-capture window 308 for transfer to
a connected party. If in the event the communications-and-
image-capture window 308 is not active, the window will open
and the image will be displayed within.
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

9
Id. at 9:26–33 (emphases added).
(6) As noted above for contentions (2), (3), and (5), Jenkins already
discloses selecting information from a portion of a screen for sharing with
other users and displaying that information in another screen field. The
Examiner correctly responds that “Ludwig was merely relied upon for the
teaching of having multiple video feeds on one field as shown in at least
figure 8C.” Ans. 14. Further, Appellant appears to be arguing that once
some modification of the combination of Kuna and Jenkins is made based on
a bodily incorporation into the combination of Kuna and Jenkins of one or
more specific teachings in Ludwig, such as having remote and local video
images displayed at the same time, further modification is needed to result in
the invention set forth in claim 1. The test for obviousness is not, however,
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference. “It is well-established that a
determination of obviousness based on the teachings from multiple
references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In
re Keller 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference. . . .”).
Thus, Appellant’s contentions attack the references individually. See
also Reply Br. 2–4. However, “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references []. [The reference] must be read,
not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior
art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

10
Appellant argues that claim 1 requires more than “having two
different application windows being displayed on one display showing two
different things” and a “display screen [that] show[s] two application
windows where one shows video feeds and the other shows shared
information,” as asserted by the Examiner. Reply Br. 1–2 (quoting Ans. 16).
Appellant contends that claim 1 “requires that ‘said selected non-robot
information is displayed by said robot monitor and in said first display field
of said remote station visual display’” and that “[t]he selected non-robot
information is selected from the second screen field, where the non-robot
information is initially displayed.” Id. at 2.
However, the selection of non-robot data or images from one screen
field and its duplication in another screen field is disclosed by Jenkins as
discussed above. We thus agree with the Examiner that the combined
teachings of Kuno, Jenkins, and Ludwig would arrive at the subject matter
recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3–7.
We note Appellant’s contention that “Ludwig moves away from the
claimed visual display by introducing a dedicated ‘Share window’ 211 that
is separate from the video window 203.” Reply Br. 3.
This argument is unpersuasive in that Appellant does not define a
“screen field” or a “portion” thereof in any manner that differentiates the
“screen field” or the “portion” thereof from different windows displayed on
a monitor, or portions thereof. To the extent Appellant is arguing that
further modification is necessary based on a bodily incorporation of features,
such argument is unpersuasive as discussed above. Further, Ludwig does
not discredit, criticize, or disparage presenting more than one type of data on
a monitor/screen field or a portion of a monitor/screen field. As noted
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

11
above, Ludwig’s Figure 2B discloses shared data along with video feeds on
the same monitor/screen field or a portion of the monitor/screen field. Like
our appellate reviewing court, “[w]e will not read into a reference a teaching
away from a process where no such language exists.” DyStar Textilfarben
GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that “there is no
suggestion in any of these references to modify the prior art in the manner
claimed.” Reply Br. 3. The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Kuno to “allow for improved
communications between the remote[] sites when having a conference in
regards to a patient’s healthcare” (Final Act. 5), “to have more than one
person being on the system when talking about a patient and thus allow
easier collaboration and improved patient care” (id. at 6), and “to allow the
sharing of information and annotating of information on a shared platform to
make the sharing and understanding of collaborated information easier” (id.
at 6–7).
[E]vidence of a motivation to combine need not be found in the
prior art references themselves, but rather may be found in “the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or, in some cases,
from the nature of the problem to be solved.” . . . When not from
the prior art references, the “evidence” of motive will likely
consist of an explanation of the well-known principle or
problem-solving strategy to be applied.
Dystar, 464 F.3d at 1366 (emphases in original, quoting In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 999 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As such, Appellant does not apprise us
of Examiner error.
Appeal 2019-005592
Application 13/277,449

12
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
Kuno, Jenkins, and Ludwig. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. We further sustain the rejection of claims 6–11, 15–20,
and 24–27, which fall with claim 1.
Rejection II – Obviousness over Kuno, Jenkins, Ludwig, and Rivette
Appellant does not provide substantive arguments in regard to the
rejection of claims 5 and 14 and relies on the arguments presented for parent
claims 1 and 11, respectively. Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, for reasons
similar to those discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 and 14 as unpatentable over Kuno, Jenkins, Ludwig, and Rivette.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–11, 15–
20, 24–27
103(a) Kuno, Jenkins,
Ludwig
1, 6–11,
15–20, 24–
27

5, 14 103(a) Kuno, Jenkins,
Ludwig, Rivette
5, 14
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–11,
14–20, 24–
27

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