Ex Parte Fernandez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2016

12394977 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/394,977 0212712009
86636 7590 10/27/2016
BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C.
2318 MILL ROAD, SUITE 1020
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dennis Sunga Fernandez
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1886-8.747BS 3506
EXAMINER
VO,TUNGT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2016 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 DENNIS SUNGA FERNANDEZ and IRENE HU FERNANDEZ
Appeal2015-003908
Application 12/394,9771
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-24, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LOT 3
ACQUISITION FOUNDATION, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-003908
Application 12/394,977
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to remote surveillance and
communications technology, particularly to integrated fixed and mobile
network electronics and related software for object attribute processing.
Spec. ,-i 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as
follows with the disputed limitations italicized:
1. A controller comprising:
a communicator configured to:
receive, via a network, first visual data from a first
mobile unit and second visual data from a second
mobile unit; and
transmit, via the network, the first visual data to
the second mobile unit and the second visual data
to the first mobile unit, to facilitate visual
communication between the first mobile unit and
the second mobile unit; and
recognition software configured to:
visually recognize a first object of observation
associated with the first visual data and a second
object of observation associated with the second
visual data; and
verify that the first visual data was received from
the first object of observation and to verify that the
second visual data was received from the second
object of observation.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Samadi (US 5,664,007; Sept. 2, 1997). Ans. 2-5.
2
Appeal2015-003908
Application 12/394,977
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 17-22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over David (US 5,544,649; Aug. 13, 1996) and
Montoya (US 5,983,109; Nov. 9, 1999). Ans. 6-11. The Examiner adds
Peifer (US 5,987,5192; Nov. 16, 1999) to reject claims 2, 5, 6, 10, and 11
(Ans. 11-12, 14-15); Puthuff (US 6,112,103; Aug. 29, 2000) to reject
claims 7 and 23 (Ans. 12-13); Walker (US 5,862,223; Jan. 19, 1999) to
reject claims 8 and 14 (Ans. 13-14); Buhrmann (US 5,903,845; May 11,
1999) to reject claim 13 (Ans. 15-16); Rudrapatna (US 6,052,598; Apr. 18,
2000) to reject claim 15 (Ans. 16-17), Kennedy III (US 6,301,480 Bl; Oct.
9, 2001) to reject claim 16 (Ans. 17-18); and Thomas (US 2005/0198063
Al; Sept. 8, 2005) to reject claim 19 (Ans. 18).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
.LA~ppellants' contentions and the evidence of record. .LA~ppellants persuade us
the Examiner fails to establish the claims are unpatentable over the cited
prior art.
Obviousness - Samadi
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious
over Samadi because Samadi does not teach or suggest "visually
recogniz[ing] a first object of observation associated with the first visual
data." App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 4-5. The Examiner finds Samadi teaches
a cell phone with an attached camera that is used to transmit visual data to
2 The Final Action and Answer incorrectly cite to Peifer et al. as
us 5,987,510.
3
Appeal2015-003908
Application 12/394,977
another user. Ans. 21-22 (citing Samadi Fig. 3B, 3:30-57). The Examiner
finds this disclosure teaches visually recognizing a first object of observation
and verifying that the object of observation is associated with first visual
data. Id. Appellants argue that although Samadi teaches two units with
processors configured to send and receive visual data as well as pause
requests and reconnection requests, Samadi is silent as to visually
recognizing an object of observation. Reply Br. 4 (citing Samadi 8:8-20).
Id.
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner has
failed to explain how Samadi's disclosure of recognizing control signals,
such as a pause request and reconnection request, teaches or suggests
visually recognizing an object of observation associated with visual data.
The Examiner has not established that Samadi analyzes the visual data for
any objects of observation or verifies that visual data was received from an
object of obser'1ation . .LA~ccordingly, on the record before us, \'1/e do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Samadi. Because we
are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue, which is
dispositive of the rejection of claim 1 over Samadi, we do not reach the
additional issues raised by Appellants' arguments.
Obviousness - David and Montoya
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over David and Montoya because the combination does not
teach or suggest "visually recogniz[ing] a first object of observation
associated with the first visual data." App. Br. 14-17; Reply Br. 6. The
Examiner finds David teaches first visual data that includes a visual image
4
Appeal2015-003908
Application 12/394,977
of a patient and second visual data that includes a visual image of a doctor.
Ans. 22 (citing David Fig. 2). The Examiner finds the software that allows
the exchange of this data visually recognizes the first and second objects of
observation. Id. The Examiner further finds David teaches verifying that
the first visual data was received from the first object of observation by
disclosing analysis of patient visual data and health condition. Ans. 23
(citing David Fig. 4). Appellants argue that although David teaches the
exchange of visual data, including images of a patient and a doctor, David is
silent regarding visually recognizing an object of observation in the visual
data and verifYing that the visual data was received from the object of
observation. App. Br. 14-17; Reply Br. 6. Appellants argue merely
receiving and displaying visual data is not the same as visually recognizing
an object of observation. App. Br. 16.
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner has
failed to explain hov"1 David's disclosure of exchanging visual data including
images of patients and doctors teaches or suggests visually recognizing an
object of observation associated with visual data. The Examiner has also
failed to explain how a doctor reviewing medical data for a patient teaches
or suggests recognition software configured to verify that visual data is
received from an object of observation. Montoya does not remedy the
deficiencies of David with respect to these limitations. Accordingly, on the
record before us, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable
over David and Montoya. Because we are persuaded of error with regard to
the identified issue, which is dispositive of the rejection of claim 1 over
David and Montoya, we do not reach the additional issues raised by
Appellants' arguments.
5
Appeal2015-003908
Application 12/394,977
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious
over Samadi. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or claims
3, 4, 7, 9, and 11 dependent therefrom.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious
over David and Montoya. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, independent claims 20, 21, and 24 which recite similar limitations,
and claims 2-19, 22, and 23 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-24.
REVERSED
6