Meural Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2021

2020000427 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2021)

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.
14/673,927 03/31/2015 Vladimir Vukicevic 1303.0002 5201
111420 7590 05/24/2021
Bechen PLLC
825 Grove Road
Suite #6
Midlothian, VA 23114
EXAMINER
SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2021 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):
ip@bechenlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VLADIMIR VUKICEVIC
________________

Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3‒7, 9‒11, 13‒17, 19‒24, and 26‒29, which are
all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 8, 12, 18, and 25 were
canceled. Appeal Br. 32‒38 (Claims App’x).2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Netgear, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 All references to the Appeal Brief are to the Supplemental Appeal Brief
filed on July 11, 2019, in response to a Notice of Defective Appeal Brief
entered on June 11, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claimed subject matter relates to digital picture frames that loop
electronic images that have been selected based on environmental conditions
instead of user selection. Spec. ¶ 11. Claims 1 and 23 are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and read as follows:
1. A method for generating an output display on a display
device, the method comprising:
accessing a content database external to the display
device, the content database having a plurality of images stored
therein;
detecting an ambient condition using an environmental
sensor;
analyzing the ambient condition to determine ambient
condition factors;
detecting at least one wirelessly connected computing
device associated with the display device and a user profile
associated with the at least one wirelessly connected computing
device, the user profile relating to a network site having content
associated with the user profile;
referencing the network site using the user profile to
detect content data;
selecting at least one of the plurality of images based on
at least one of: the content data and the ambient condition
factors; and
generating the output display on the display device of the
at least one selected image.
23. A method for generating an output display on a digital
display device within a mounting frame including processing
electronics therein, the method comprising:
via the processing electronics within the mounting frame:
Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927

3

accessing a content database external to the display
device, the content database having a plurality of images
stored therein;
selecting at least one of the plurality of the images
from the content database based on a user profile;
receiving the at least one of the plurality of
images;
detecting an ambient condition using an
environmental sensor;
analyzing the ambient condition to determine
ambient condition factors;
detecting a commotion level external to the display
device, the commotion level based on the ambient
condition factors determined by the ambient conditions
acquire by the environmental sensor;
selecting at least one of the images based on the
commotion level; and
generating the output display of the at least one
selected images on the digital device disposed within the
mounting frame.
Appeal Br. 32, 37 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3‒7, 9‒11, 13‒17, and 19‒22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ramsay (US 2011/0093100 A1; Apr. 21, 2011)
and Ingrassia (US 2011/0295843 A1; Dec. 1, 2011). Final Act. 4‒15. 3
Claims 23, 24, and 26‒29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ramsay, Ingrassia, and Bitetto (US 6,975,308 B1; Dec.
13, 2005). Final Act. 15‒23.

3 All references to the Final Action are to the Final Action entered on
November 27, 2018.
Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927

4

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3‒7, 9‒11, 13‒17, 19‒22, 28, 29
The Examiner finds the combination of Ramsay and Ingrassia teaches
or suggests “detecting at least one wirelessly connected computing device
associated with the display device and a user profile associated with the at
least one wirelessly connected computing device.” See Ans. 22‒23; Final
Act. 6‒8. In particular, the Examiner finds Ingrassia teaches users
affirmatively opting in to taking part in a group playlist, which the Examiner
finds teaches or suggests “detecting at least one wirelessly connected
computing device.” Ans. 22 (citing Ingrassia ¶ 61). The Examiner further
finds Ingrassia teaches accessing a database to obtain profile data for users
that opted in, which the Examiner finds teaches detecting “a user profile
associated with the at least one wirelessly connected computing device.” Id.
at 23 (citing Ingrassia ¶ 44).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over the combination of Ramsay and Igrassia because neither
reference teaches or suggests “detecting at least one wirelessly connected
computing device associated with the display device and a user profile
associated with the at least one wirelessly connected computing device.”
Appeal Br. 19‒21. Appellant argues Ingrassia teaches a data link that
connects a media player to a host computer, thereby allowing for a passive
data transfer, but Ingrassia does not teach “detecting at least one wirelessly
connected computing device associated with the display device,” as claimed.
Id. at 20 (citing Ingrassia ¶ 72). Appellant also argues Ingrassia does not
teach “detecting” a user profile because Ingrassia teaches a database pre-
Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927

5

populated with information so that the system can access that information.
Id. (citing Ingrassia ¶ 44).
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Ingrassia teaches a
party host sends electronic party invitations to invitees. Ingrassia ¶ 61.
The invitees may respond by opting in to take part in a group playlist. Id.
If an invitee opts in, data associated with the invitee is uploaded to a cloud
computing system. Id. ¶ 61‒63. Ingrassia teaches the system can access a
database that stores profile data, including musical preferences for
individuals. Id. ¶ 44. Ingrassia teaches the system can also access external
sources, such as social networking sites, to obtain profile data. Id.
An analysis module uses the data uploaded by the invitee and profile data to
generate a group profile and a media playlist. Id. ¶ 61‒63. Ingrassia further
teaches various network connections that can be used to retrieve these
different types of data and media items that will be played as part of the
generated media playlist. Id. ¶ 72.
However, the Examiner has not identified, nor have we found,
teachings in Ingrassia relating to the detection of a “wirelessly connected
computing device associated with the display device.” The Examiner relies
on Ingrassia’s teachings relating to an invitee opting in to the group playlist
for this limitation, but the Examiner has not adequately explained how this
teaching relates to a particular wirelessly connected computing device or
detection of such a device. The mere fact that an invitee uses an electronic
device at an unknown location with unknown connectivity during the opt-in
process is not sufficient to teach “detecting a wirelessly connected
computing device associated with the display panel,” as claimed.
Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927

6

For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1.4 We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 11, which recites commensurate subject
matter. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 3‒7, 9, 10, 13‒17, and 19‒22, which depend therefrom. Claims 28
and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ramsay,
Ingrassia, and Bitetto. Final Act. 15‒23. The Examiner does not find that
Bitetto teaches the disputed limitation. See id. Accordingly, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 28 and 29 for the
same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 23 and 24
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding that the combination of
Ramsay and Ingrassia teaches or suggests “detecting a commotion level
external to the display device, the commotion level based on the ambient
condition factors determined by the ambient conditions acquire by the
environmental sensor,” as recited in claim 23. Appeal Br. 26‒28. In
particular, Appellant argues Ramsay teaches a portable MP3 player that
detects conditions happening in relation to the MP3 player, but none of these
conditions are a “commotion level,” as claimed. Id.at 27. Appellant argues
Ramsay’s sensors relate to movement of the MP3 player and Ramsay’s
measurements are predicated on movement the MP3 player. Id. at 28; Reply
Br. 3. Appellant argues an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have

4 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant with respect to these claims, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant’s other arguments with respect to these claims.
Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927

7

combined Ramsay’s movement sensors with a stationary picture frame, such
as taught by Bitetto. Reply Br. 3‒4.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Ramsay teaches various environmental sensors,
including an “audio sensor/microphone” that detects “ambient audio.”
Ans. 27; see also Ramsay ¶ 29 (disclosing a table of sensors and the
environmental factor detected by each sensor). Ramsay teaches
environmental factors may be evaluated directly from sensor data or may be
processed by the device to derive other environmental factors. Id. ¶ 30. We
agree with the Examiner that Ramsay’s audio sensor for detecting ambient
audio teaches, or at least suggests, detecting “a commotion level external to
the display device” where the commotion level is “based on the ambient
condition factors determined by the ambient conditions acquire[d] by the
environmental sensor.”
Appellant’s argument that Ramsay’s teachings are predicated on the
movement and portability of the MP3 player is not persuasive. The
Examiner finds Ramsay’s audio sensor is not predicated on movement of the
MP3 player because an audio sensor measuring ambient audio has nothing to
do with mobility of the MP3 player itself. See Ans. 28. We agree. We also
note that Ramsay teaches its sensors may be housed in various computer
systems, including media devices, such as televisions, set-top boxes, or
stereo systems. Ramsay ¶ 28. Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood that the listed sensors are not limited to just portable MP3
players, and would have appreciated that Ramsay’s audio sensor may be
used to detect ambient audio in many settings, including in a stationary
display device such as a television.
Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927

8

For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 23. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 24,
for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See Appeal Br. 26‒28.
Claims 26 and 27
Claim 26 recites
The method of claim 23, wherein one of the plurality of
environmental sensors detects user gestures for providing
gesture-based control of the display device, the method further
comprising:
detecting, using one of the plurality of environmental
sensors, a user gesture external to the display device; and
adjusting the output display based on the user gesture.
Appeal Br. 38 (Claims Appendix).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 26 because
Ramsay does not teach or suggest “gestures for providing gesture-based
control of the display device.” Appeal Br. 28‒29. Appellant argues
Ramsay’s sensors all relate to movement of an MP3 player and Ramsay does
not teach or suggest measuring movement as a form of gesture to control the
device. Id. at 29.
The Examiner finds Ramsay teaches an “IR/Photosensor” that detects
“[u]ser eye movement, position, body temperature,” which the Examiner
finds teaches detecting a user gesture. Ans. 28‒29 (citing Ramsay ¶ 29). The
Examiner finds Ramsay discloses changing playback due to its various
sensors, which, according to the Examiner, teaches or suggests adjusting the
output display based on a detected user gesture. Id. at 29 (citing Ramsay ¶
15).
Appellant responds that the full and complete extent of the teachings
of this embodiment are limited to a description of the sensor
Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927

9

(“IR/Photosensor”) and a listing of what the sensor detects (“user eye
movement, position, body temperature”). Reply Br. 5. Appellant argues this
is insufficient to teach or suggest the claimed detection of “user gestures for
providing gesture-based control of the display device.” Id.
We begin our analysis by looking at the plain language of claim 26.
Claim 26 recites “one of the plurality of environmental sensors detects user
gestures for providing gesture-based control of the display device.” Claim 26
recites that this detection comprises “detecting, using one of the plurality of
environmental sensors, a user gesture external to the display device; and
adjusting the output display based on the user gesture.” However, claim 26
provides no further detail as to the type of user gestures detected, the manner
in which the user gestures are detected, or how the user gestures are used to
adjust the output display.
The Specification provides no further detail regarding these
limitations. Each of the disclosures relating to gesture-based control or user
gestures mentions gestures at a high level without any additional detail. For
example, the Specification discloses “an electric field sensor for proximity
detection and/or gesture-based control, an infrared-based sensor for ambient
light detection and/or proximity detection and/or gesture-based control,
[and] an ultrasonic transducer sensor for proximity detection and/or gesture-
based control.” Spec. ¶ 37. This disclosure does not define gesture-based
control. The other disclosures relating to gestures offer no more specificity.
See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 44, 47, 64, 75.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Ramsay’s teachings are
insufficient to support the finding that Ramsay teaches detecting user
gestures. We disagree. Ramsay teaches a variety of environmental sensors
Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927

10

that may be used to control a playback device. See Ramsay ¶¶ 29‒30. These
environmental sensors include an IR/Photosensor that detects user eye
movement and position. Id. ¶ 29. Ramsay teaches selecting content for
output on the device based on sensing one or more environmental factors.
Id. ¶ 31. Although Ramsay does not explicitly disclose an example of how to
use the IR/Photosensor to control the device, Ramsay teaches that any of
these sensors may be used to control the device. Id. This at least suggests
that the IR/Photosensor, which is used to detect user eye movement and
position, may be used to control the device. An ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood that using Ramsey’s IR/Photosensor to control the
device may involve detecting gestures made by the user’s eyes. This
interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s own Specification, which
discloses “an infrared-based sensor,” or IR sensor, for gesture-based control,
without additional detail. Spec. ¶ 37.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 26. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 27,
for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See Appeal Br. 28‒30.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3‒7, 9‒
11, 13‒17,
19‒22
103 Ramsay, Ingrassia 1, 3‒7, 9‒
11, 13‒
17, 19‒22
23, 24, 26‒
29
103 Ramsay, Ingrassia,
Bitetto
23, 24, 26,
27
28, 29
Appeal 2020-000427
Application 14/673,927

11

Overall
Outcome
23, 24, 26,
27
1, 3‒7, 9‒
11, 13‒
17, 19‒
22, 28, 29

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 IN PART