Zvi Minkovitch

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 8, 2019

15877404 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2019)

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.
15/877,404 01/23/2018 Zvi MINKOVITCH MINKO-002-US1 8768
131926 7590 10/08/2019
May Patents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov
P.O.B 7230
Ramat-Gan, 5217102
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
JOISIL, BERTEAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/08/2019 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 ZVI MINKOVITCH
____________

Appeal 2019-003249
Application 15/877,404
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–30, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

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 FB-MM
LTD. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003249
Application 15/877,404

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant states that an embodiment of the present invention is “a
system for refereeing a sports match comprising a portable processing
device for compiling data associated with the sports match; and eyeglasses
comprising data display means for displaying the data associated with the
sports match to a wearer of the eyeglasses.” Spec. ¶ 6.2 As described in the
Specification,
Applicant has realized that the Football Match Management
System (FB-MM) described in previously mentioned, co-
pending PCT application PCT/IB2012/002000, or a similar hand
held device suitable for managing one or more sports matches
may be integrated with data display glasses as part of a portable
refereeing system, hereinafter referred to as FB-RS, which may
serve to assist one or more users monitor and/or referee sports
matches, and which may include football [soccer] matches.

Id. at 48. Appellant’s Figure 1 is shown below.

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Oct. 9, 2018 (“Final
Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Dec. 31, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) and
Reply Brief filed Mar. 18, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Mar. 6, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed Jan. 23,
2018 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2019-003249
Application 15/877,404

3

Appeal 2019-003249
Application 15/877,404

4
Figure 1 schematically illustrates exemplary smart glasses 102 that
may include frame 104, touch pad 105, display 106, imaging unit 108,
transceiver 109, microphone 110, and sound transducer 111 (e.g.
loudspeaker, earphone, etc.). Spec. ¶¶ 51–52. Additionally, smart glasses
102 may include housing 103 attached to frame 104, which may serve to
house any one or more of such devices. Id. at ¶ 52. Smart glasses 102 may
be worn by a referee during a soccer match and by an assistant referee or
linemen to assist in monitoring and refereeing the match. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reproduced
below:
1. A system comprising first and second devices for
interaction between respective first and second persons, each of
the first and second devices comprising:

a tactile surface responsive to the person touch or press;

a first camera for capturing or imaging a visual image;

a microphone configured and mounted for capturing
the person originated voice;

a first display configured and mounted for providing first
visual data to the person;

a sound transducer consisting of, or comprising, a
loudspeaker, headphone, or earphone, that is configured and
mounted for sounding an auditory data to the person;

an antenna and a wireless transceiver coupled the
antenna for wirelessly receiving first data and for wirelessly
transmitting second data over a wireless network, the wireless
transceiver is coupled to the first display for displaying the
Appeal 2019-003249
Application 15/877,404

5
first visual data that is responsive to, includes, or is based
on the received first data, the wireless transceiver is
further coupled to the sound transducer for sounding the
auditory data that is responsive to, includes, or is based on
the received first data, the wireless transceiver is further
coupled to the tactile surface, the first camera, or the
microphone for the second data that is respectively responsive
to, include, or is based on the person touch or press, the
visual image, or the person originated voice;

a software and a processor for executing the software, the
processor coupled to control, receive data from, or transmit data
to, the tactile surface, the first camera, the microphone, the first
display, and the sound transducer; and

a wearable eyewear frame configured for mounting or
attaching thereon the processor, the antenna, the tactile surface,
display, the first camera, the microphone, and the first display,

wherein the first device is configured for transmitting, by
via the antenna by the wireless transceiver of the first device,
the visual image captured by the first camera of the first device,
and wherein the second device is configured for receiving, by
via the antenna by the wireless transceiver of the second device,
the visual image sent by the first camera of the first device, and
for displaying, by the first display of the second device, the
received visual image.

Appeal Br. 44–45 (Claims App’x).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1 and 4–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen (US 2017/0069139 A1; published Mar. 9, 2017) in
view of Chaum (US 2010/0110368 A1; published May 6, 2010). Final Act.
6–19.
Appeal 2019-003249
Application 15/877,404

6
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen, Chaum, and Raffle et al. (US 8,235,529 B1; issued
Aug. 7, 2012) (“Raffle”).3 Final Act. 19–20.

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the dispositive issue
before us is whether the combination of Chen and Chaum teaches or
suggests, “wherein the second device is configured for receiving, by via the
antenna by the wireless transceiver of the second device, the visual image
sent by the first camera of the first device, and for displaying, by the first
display of the second device, the received visual image,” as recited in claim
1.
Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown that Chen and
Chaum, individually or collectively, teach or suggest “any system including
multiple eyewear devices in general, and in particular any wireless or any
other communicating between such [eyewear] devices.”4 Appeal Br. 7–9.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds Chen teaches
“displaying, by the first display of the second device, the received visual
image.” Final Act. 7 (citing Chen, Figs. 5, 9, and ¶¶ 65, 105, 121, 155). In
the Answer, the Examiner finds that “[t]he broadest and reasonable

3 In the Answer, the Examiner finds that “the instant application has a
double patenting issue when compared with Parent Application []
14/777,125.” Ans. 22–25. This issue, however, is not within our
jurisdiction because, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), our review is limited to
rejections of claims. Therefore, we do not address the double patenting
issue in our analysis.
4 Appellant makes other arguments in the Briefs with respect to claim 1, but
we do not address them because our decision of this issue is dispositive.
Appeal 2019-003249
Application 15/877,404

7
interpretation of Chen does suggest such features as sustained in the
rejection” of claim 1 over Chen in view of Chaum. Ans. 19. Although the
Examiner also finds that Chen “suggests in part” the features of claim 1,
including “wherein the second device is configured for receiving, by via the
antenna by the wireless transceiver of the second device, the visual image
sent by the first camera of the first device, and for displaying, by the first
display of the second device, the received visual image,” this finding is
unsupported by any citation to Chen or Chaum. Id. at 19–20.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred.
We have reviewed the portions of Chen cited by the Examiner and
determine they do not teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1.
Chen does teach a user wearing glasses 200 looks at a second person and
receives a recommendation for the user to help or interact with the second
person, which may be displayed on the lenses or a small screen in front of
glasses 200. Chen ¶¶ 65, 105, 119–121, 155. However, the cited portions of
Chen do not teach or suggest wireless communication between two sets of
eyewear devices in which “a second device is configured for receiving, by
via the antenna by the wireless transceiver of the second device, the visual
image sent by the first camera of the first device, and for displaying, by the
first display of the second device, the received visual image,” as recited in
claim 1. Nor has the Examiner provided a reasoned explanation, supported
by citations to the record, of how Chaum may teach or suggest the disputed
limitation, either alone or in combination with Chen.
Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to find the Examiner
erred because the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Chen and
Chaum teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1 by a
Appeal 2019-003249
Application 15/877,404

8
preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed.
Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a
preponderance of the evidence). Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2–30, for obviousness under
§ 103(a).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–30 § 103 Chen,
Chaum
1, 4–30
2, 3 § 103 Chen,
Chaum,
and Raffle
2, 3
Overall Outcome 1–30

REVERSED