Zvi MinkovitchDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 8, 201915877404 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation