SONY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

14437375 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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. 14/437,375 04/21/2015 Furkan Dayi 10449US01 3333 154930 7590 03/03/2020 XSENSUS LLP 200 Daingerfield Road Suite 201 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER WINDRICH, MARCUS E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/03/2020 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): Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com Sandy.Miles@Xsensus.com anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FURKAN DAYI, RALF BOEHNKE, MIQUEL TESTAR, MARCEL BLECH, and QI WANG ___________ Appeal 2018-006610 Application 14/437,375 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRETT C. MARTIN, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-5, and 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Storz (US 2009/0167593 A1, published July 2, 2009) and Han (US 2005/0046615 A1, published Mar. 3, 2005). Claims 2 and 6 have been canceled. An Oral Hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 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 Sony Corporation. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 1, filed Nov. 13, 2017. Appeal 2018-006610 Application 14/437,375 2 § 41.47 was held on February 12, 2020. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to a method for generating an image and a handheld screening device.” Spec. 1:7-8, Fig. 4. Claims 1, 5, and 9 are independent. Claim 9 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 9. A handheld screening device comprising: an active radar scanner configured to generate an active radar image of an object; a display to display a first representation of the active radar image; a movement sensor configured to detect a movement of the handheld screening device; a processor configured to determine a direction of movement of the handheld screening device in relation to the object based on an output of the movement sensor; generate a second representation of the active radar image based on the determined direction of movement, wherein the second representation has a smaller field of view than the first representation when it is determined that the movement is towards the object, and the second representation has a larger field of view than the first representation when it is determined that the movement is away from the object; and control the display to display the second representation. Appeal 2018-006610 Application 14/437,375 3 ANALYSIS Independent claim 9 is directed to a handheld screening device including a processor configured to “generate a second representation of the active radar image based on the determined direction of movement [of the handheld screening device].” Appeal Br. 11-12 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Storz discloses a handheld screening device including “a processor configured to determine a direction of movement of the handheld screening device in relation to the object based on an output of the movement sensor.” Final Act. 5.2 The Examiner also finds that Storz provides “a smaller field of view when the handheld [device] is moved towards the object by providing a new image and so fails to disclose providing a smaller field of view using the existing image.” Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that “Han teaches providing a smaller field of view on an existing image.” Final Act. 4 (citing Han ¶ 73, Figs. 13A-B); see also id. at 5. Appellant contends that the combined teachings of Storz and Han fail to disclose “zooming in on or otherwise generating a second representation of an existing image based on a determined direction of movement of the handheld device,” as required by claim 9. Reply Br. 23; see also Appeal Br. 5-6. In particular, Appellant contends that Storz discloses “continuously scan[ning] the area of interest to generate and display new images as the handheld device is moved” and that Han fails to “teach or suggest that [its] zooming operation is performed in response to a direction of movement of the device.” Appeal Br. 5-6. 2 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated May 1, 2017. 3 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed June 11, 2018. Appeal 2018-006610 Application 14/437,375 4 Appellant has the better position here. As an initial matter, both the Examiner and Appellant agree that Storz discloses a handheld device such that “when the device is moved towards an object a new radar image is generated (by newly scanning the area of interest).” Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 1; Final Act. 4; Ans. 3 (“Storz creates a new image.”). Stated differently, Storz creates alternate (different) active radar images of the area of interest as the handheld device is moved. Paragraphs 72 and 73 of Han “describe[] a configuration in which a user may zoom in on a map image in a navigation system by pressing a zoom key 58q.” See Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2; Han ¶¶ 72, 73, Figures 13A-B. Although we agree with the Examiner that Han discloses “zooming in on an existing [the same] image,” the Examiner does not direct us to any discussion in Han that the zooming operation generates a second (different) representation of a previously displayed image (the same image) “based on the determined direction of movement” of the handheld device. See Ans. 44; see also Final Act. 4-5; Appeal Br. 6; id. at 12 (Claims App.); Reply Br. 1-2 (Han “does not teach or suggest that the zooming is performed in response to a direction of movement of the device.”). For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that Storz and Han, even if combined, fail to disclose a processor configured to generate “a second representation of the (i.e.[,] the same) active radar image based on [the] determined direction of movement of the handheld device,” as recited in claim 9. Appeal Br. 6. Similar to independent claim 9, independent claims 1 and 5 are directed to a method performed by a handheld screening device and a 4 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Apr. 11, 2018. Appeal 2018-006610 Application 14/437,375 5 handheld screening device, respectively, and each recites language to a processor for generating/to generate a second representation of the active radar image (i.e., the same image) based on detected movement of the handheld device. See Appeal Br. 10, 11 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on similar unsupported findings in Storz and Han as those discussed above for claim 9 in support of the rejection of these claims. See Final Act. 3-4. As such, the Examiner’s findings with respect to Storz and Han are deficient for claims 1 and 5 as well. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-12 as unpatentable over Storz and Han. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-5, 7- 12 103(a) Storz and Han 1, 3-5, 7-12 REVERSED