Ex Parte Ben-Arie

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2014

11371036 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ODED BEN-ARIE
____________

Appeal 2012-002991
Application 11/371,036
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–9, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral argument on
October 14, 2014.
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “[a] headset for use with a mobile
phone incorporate[ing] a microphone, an earphone, and a video display
adapted to be supported in the user’s field of view.” (Abstract.) Claim 1,
which is illustrative, reads as follows:
Appeal 2012-002991
Application 11/371,036

2
1. A cellular phone system including:
a cellular phone transceiver with a video display;
a headset adapted to be supported on the head of a user
and including a microphone, an earphone, and a video display
supported relative to the user’s eye; and
a wired or wireless communication between the cellular
phone and the headset allowing the transmission of audio
signals between the phone and headset and the transmission of
signals representative of the video display as it appears on the
cellular phone for generation of the same display on the headset
video display.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims.
Loiseaux US 5,416,617 May 16, 1995
Jannard US 2004/0157649 A1 Aug. 12, 2004
Stanton US 6,982,683 B2 Jan. 3, 2006
Zhang US 7,027,842 B2 Apr. 11, 2006
Jacobson US 2007/0013873 A9 Jan. 18, 2007

Claims 1–4, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jannard and Jacobson. (Ans. 5–7.)
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jannard, Jacobson, and Stanton. (Ans. 8.)
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jannard, Jacobson, Stanton, and Loiseaux. (Ans. 8–9.)
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jannard, Jacobson, and Zhang. (Ans. 9–10.)

ISSUES
The issues presented by Appellant’s contentions are as follows:
Appeal 2012-002991
Application 11/371,036

3
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Jannard and Jacobson teaches or suggests:
a headset . . . including a . . . video display supported
relative to the user’s eye; and a wired or wireless
communication between the cellular phone and the
headset allowing the transmission of audio signals
between the phone and headset and the transmission of
signals representative of the video display as it appears on
the cellular phone for generation of the same display on
the headset video display,

as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Jannard teaches or
suggests “the video display of the headset is supported on the headset
and by a boom extending into one point of the user’s field of view so
as to allow the user to see the display without obscuring the user’s
forward vision,” as recited in claim 3?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Jannard, Jacobson, Stanton, and Loiseaux teaches or suggests “the
screen is adapted to be controlled so as to be transparent when no
display signal is being transmitted,” as recited in claim 6?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding Jannard teaches or
suggests “the headset incorporates contact switches allowing signals
to be transmitted from the headset to control the cellular phone,” as
recited in claim 7?

ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends “there is no suggestion in
Jannard of providing a video display supported relative to the user’s eye and
Appeal 2012-002991
Application 11/371,036

4
a wired or wireless communication system between a cellular phone carried
by the user and the video display supported relative to the user’s eye.” (Br.
3.) Appellant further contends “Jannard’s disclosure is completely limited to
a system of audio communication between a cell phone and the like and an
audio system supported on the user’s head, possibly on eyeglasses.” (Br. 4.)
In response, the Examiner finds paragraphs 15, 69, and 194 of Jannard teach
a video display supported relative to the user’s eye. (Ans. 10.) In particular,
the Examiner finds paragraph 69 describes eyeglasses where “at least one of
the lenses can be in the form of a video display unit configured to be
viewable by a wearer of the eyeglasses . . . .” (Id.) The Examiner also finds
Figure 8 and paragraph 194, lines 19–26 of Jannard teach wireless
communication, including transmission of video signals, between the
eyeglasses and a cellular phone carried by the user. (Ans. 10–11.) We agree
with the Examiner. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they do
not respond to the Examiner’s specific findings and disregard the disclosure
of Jannard cited by the Examiner.
Appellant also contends “Jacobson discloses a projector for a video
display appearing on a headphone but makes no suggestion of using that to
display a duplicate of a separated cell phone display.” (Br. 5 (emphasis
added).) The Examiner responds by finding paragraphs 71 and 72 of
Jacobson teach “a cellular phone that transmits signals representative of the
video display as it appears on the cellular phone for generation of the same
display on a portable video display such as eyeglasses.” (Ans. 11 (emphasis
added).) We agree with the Examiner. Appellant’s argument is
unpersuasive because claim 1 recites “the transmission of signals
representative of the video display as it appears on the cellular phone,” not
Appeal 2012-002991
Application 11/371,036

5
“transmission of signals duplicating the entire video display as it appears on
the cellular phone.” Furthermore, there is no description in Appellant’s
Specification that requires the headset to display a duplicate of the cell
phone display. Rather, the Specification discloses “[t]he wireless link
between the headset and the cell phone transmits data representing an image
or a digital representation of the display to be generated on the headset,
which would otherwise appear on the video screen of the cell phone.”
(Spec. 3:5–8 (emphases added).) Hence, Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate with the claim language or the written description in
Appellant’s Specification. On the other hand, the disclosure of Jacobson at
paragraph 72, which discusses Figure 17 depicting a cell phone that
transmits signals to a microprojector “to project[] a displayed image onto an
available surface, such as . . . a portable display screen,” is commensurate
with the disclosure in Appellant’s Specification relating to the recited
limitation discussed above, and hence teaches or suggests the limitation.
Appellant further contends, in Jacobson, “[n]o reference is made to
the transmission of signals representative of the cell phone display to a head
mounted display.” (Br. 5.) Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because
the Examiner relies on Jannard, not Jacobson, to teach transmission of video
signals between the headset and the cell phone. (See Ans. 11.)
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Thus, we agree with the Examiner the combination of Jannard and
Jacobson teaches or suggests:
Appeal 2012-002991
Application 11/371,036

6
a headset . . . including a . . . video display supported relative to
the user’s eye; and a wired or wireless communication between
the cellular phone and the headset allowing the transmission of
audio signals between the phone and headset and the
transmission of signals representative of the video display as it
appears on the cellular phone for generation of the same display
on the headset video display,

as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jannard and Jacobson together with the rejection of
claim 4 which depends from claim 1 and was not argued separately with
particularity. We further sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 9
which are argued based on essentially the same ground as claim 1 and which
we find unpersuasive of error for the reasons supra. Furthermore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jannard,
Jacobson, and Stanton and of claim 8 over Jannard, Jacobson, and Zhang for
the same reasons, these claims also not argued separately with particularity.
Regarding claim 3, Appellant contends that, although Jannard
discloses a boom for a microphone, the prior art does not disclose a boom
for supporting a video display. (See Br. 6.) In response, the Examiner
explains the microphone boom in the headset assembly of Jannard also
teaches or suggests “the video display of the headset is supported on the
headset and by a boom,” as recited in claim 3. (See Ans. 12.) The Examiner
finds, because Appellant provides “no further detail as to exactly how said
video display is supported by the boom,” e.g., how the boom for the video
display differs from the boom for the microphone in structure and/or
operation in Appellant’s invention, Jannard’s boom teaches or suggests the
Appeal 2012-002991
Application 11/371,036

7
recited limitation under a broadest reasonable interpretation. (See id.)
Absent persuasive evidence or argument in rebuttal, we find the Examiner’s
explanation to be reasonable and agree Jannard teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation.
Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence or argument, we are
unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jannard and Jacobson.
Regarding claim 6, which depends directly from claim 5 and
indirectly from claim 1, Appellant acknowledges Loiseaux discloses a
screen which is adapted to be controlled so as to be transparent when no
display signal is being transmitted, but contends “there is [] no suggestion in
any of the references of incorporating such a screen in a head mounted
display so that the screen is visible to the user’s eyes and moreover displays
a duplicate of the images appearing on a separated cell phone display.” (See
Br. 7.) Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because claims 1, 5, and 6 do
not require duplicating the cell phone display as discussed above with
respect to claim 1.
In addition, neither claim 5 nor claim 6 recites “a screen in a head
mounted display.” Rather, claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, recites
“projecting the display onto a screen supported forward of the user’s eyes
and within the user’s field of view.” Furthermore, the description in
Appellant’s Specification does not require the screen of claims 5 or 6 to be
incorporated into a head mounted display. Instead, the Specification
discloses:
the headset display system may incorporate a small projector
which projects the image of the screen . . . onto a small screen,
which is preferably translucent, which forward and slightly to
Appeal 2012-002991
Application 11/371,036

8
the side of the user’s field of view. The screen may be
controlled so as to be transparent when no display signal is being
transmitted.

(Spec. 5:9–14 (emphasis added).) Hence, Appellant’s argument is
unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the claim language or the
written description in Appellant’s Specification.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
6, and, accordingly, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jannard, Jacobson, Stanton, and Loiseaux.
With respect to claim 7, Appellant acknowledges Jannard discloses
switches similar to the switches recited in the claim. (See Br. 6.) Appellant
contends, however, Jannard discloses “switches for use solely with the audio
signals of a cell phone, but nothing with respect to the video signals.” (Id.)
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because, as the Examiner explains,
claim 7 recites “contact switches allowing signals to be transmitted from the
headset to control the cellular phone.” (Ans. 12.) That is, claim 7 does not
require “contact switches allowing audio and video signals.” Hence, we
agree with the Examiner paragraphs 11 and 220 of Jannard teach the recited
limitation. (Id.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 7, and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jannard and Jacobson.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–9 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2012-002991
Application 11/371,036

9

AFFIRMED

tj