Cognex Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019005565 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
15/221,152 07/27/2016 Tuotuo LI C1524.70008US01 4281
115423 7590 12/30/2020
Cognex Corporation
c/o Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
600 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210-2211
EXAMINER
HAIEM, SEAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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):
C1524_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com
Patents_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com
patents.us@cognex.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TUOTUO LI, LIFENG LIU, and CYRIL C. MARRION
Appeal 2019-005565
Application 15/221,152
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cognex
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005565
Application 15/221,152

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed “to calibrating a machine vision system.”
Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1–16 are pending; claims 1, 9, and 13 are independent.
Appeal Br. 20–27. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphases
added):
1. A machine vision system comprising:
one or more interfaces configured to provide
communication with a motion rendering device, a first image
sensor, and a second image sensor, wherein:
the motion rendering device is configured to provide at
least one of a translational movement and an in-plane rotational
movement, and is associated with a first coordinate system;
the motion rendering device is configured to directly or
indirectly carry a first calibration plate and a second calibration
plate, and the first calibration plate and the second calibration
plate comprise a first plurality of known features with known
physical positions relative to the first calibration plate and a
second plurality of known features with known physical positions
relative to the second calibration plate, respectively; and
the first image sensor and the second image sensor are
configured to capture an image of the first calibration plate and
the second calibration plate, respectively, and the first image
sensor and the second image sensor are associated with a second
coordinate system and a third coordinate system, respectively,
wherein each of the first coordinate system, second coordinate
system, and third coordinate system are different from each
other; and
a processor configured to run a computer program stored
in memory that is configured to:
send, via the one or more interfaces to the motion
rendering device, first data configured to cause the motion
rendering device to move to a requested first pose;
receive, via the one or more interfaces from the
motion rendering device, a reported first pose;
Appeal 2019-005565
Application 15/221,152

3
receive, via the one or more interfaces from the first
image sensor, a first image of the first calibration plate for the
reported first pose;
receive, via the one or more interfaces from the
second image sensor, a second image of the second calibration
plate for the reported first pose;
determine a first plurality of correspondences
between the known physical positions of the first plurality of
features relative to the first calibration plate and first positions of
the first plurality of features detected in the first image;
determine a second plurality of correspondences
between the known physical positions of the second plurality of
features relative to the second calibration plate and second
positions of the second plurality of features detected in the
second image;
determine, based on the first plurality of
correspondences, a first transformation that allows mapping
between the first coordinate system associated with the motion
rendering device and the second coordinate system associated
with the first image sensor; and
determine, based on the second plurality of
correspondences, a second transformation that allows mapping
between the first coordinate system associated with the motion
rendering device and the third coordinate system associated with
the second image sensor,
wherein the first and second transformations allow
the machine vision system to establish correspondences between
features found in separate images taken by the first and second
image sensors and the first coordinate system.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1 –16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Csipkes (US 5,854,852; Dec. 29, 1998) in view of Ye (US 2011/0157373
A1; June 30, 2011). Final Act. 6.

Appeal 2019-005565
Application 15/221,152

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues “the Office Action fails to demonstrate how the
combination of Csipkes and Ye would have taught or suggested all
limitations of the claim.” Appeal Br. 16. Particularly, Appellant contends
“Csipkes addresses an offset determination system and method that permits
accurate calculation of an offset of a central feature of an object, such as an
optical fiber core,” and the Examiner “does not explain in any way how the
elements of Csipkes and Ye could be combined” to yield a system having “a
plurality of calibration plates” as claimed. Appeal Br. 9, 14.
The Examiner concludes claim 1 is obvious in view of the combined
teachings of Csipkes and Ye. Csipkes teaches a machine vision system for
capturing images of a fiber optic core and termination endface boundary, to
determine the fiber optic’s offset by using a “transformation map [that] is
essentially a device for comparing the characteristics of an ideal termination
21 to another termination 21 to be tested.” Csipkes 24:17–19; see Csipkes
Figs. 2, 14, 15. Ye teaches determining camera miscalibration by comparing
how “observed images match [a] trained model . . . . [that] includes one or
more features 158, 159, 160 that are visible to each camera, as illustrated by
the dashed lines.” Ye ¶ 25; see Ye Fig. 1A. The Examiner finds Csipkes
teaches the claimed first calibration plate, Ye teaches multiple calibration
plates, and “the modification of . . . Csipkes to provide two calibration
plates on the same coordinate system (first coordinate system) instead of one
calibration plate is obvious.” Ans. 4.
We find the Examiner’s obviousness rejection to be in error. “[A]
patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
Appeal 2019-005565
Application 15/221,152

5
prior art,” and a “factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion
caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex
post reasoning.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 421
(2007).
The Examiner has not shown one of ordinary skill would modify
Csipke’s fiber optic offset teachings with Ye’s camera calibration teachings.
Particularly, the Examiner maps the recited “first calibration plate” to
Csipkes’ fiber optic termination (see Ans. 3; Csipkes Fig. 2, element 21);
thus, modifying Csipkes to include additional calibration plates would result
in additional fiber optic terminations. The Examiner, however, does not
provide a reason to add such terminations. Nor does the Examiner explain
how Csipkes’s termination imagers would incorporate Ye’s additional,
separate calibration features. Compare Ans. 4 (finding one of ordinary skill
would combine the references so that “each camera may be easier to take
images of its own dedicated calibration plate.”), with Csipkes 4:26–44 (“The
termination endface is exposed to the boundary segment imager(s) and the
feature imager of the imaging system,” and “[f]rom the combined image, the
machine vision system determines the offset, or eccentricity, of the feature
relative to the alignment surface.”) (emphasis added). Based on the record
before us, we find one of ordinary skill would not combine the cited
references in the manner proposed by the Examiner.
We are persuaded the Examiner has not established claim 1 is obvious
in view of the combined teachings of Csipkes and Ye. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, or
the rejections of the remaining claims which are rejected for the same
reasons.
Appeal 2019-005565
Application 15/221,152

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–16 103 Csipkes, Ye 1–16

REVERSED