10392758 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 22, 2011)

Ex Parte Baer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 22, 2011

10392758 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte RICHARD L. BAER, XUEMEI ZHANG and DIETRICH W. VOOK ____________ Appeal 2009-007112 Application 10/392,758 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-007112 Application 10/392,758 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (a) from a final rejection of claims 1-24. Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We reverse. Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. An optical inspection system, comprising: means for receiving illumination reflected from the surface of an object; and means for producing image data representing the intensity of the reflected illumination from spatial locations on the surface of the object; and means for processing said image data to discern between illumination intensities of an illumination gradient associated with the reflected illumination to determine surface gradients at the spatial locations on the surface of the object. Rejections on Appeal Claims 5-11 and 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 6,207,946 B1 issued to Jusoh (“Jusoh”). Answer 3-8. Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 6,608,921 B1 issued to Inoue (“Inoue”). Answer 9-10. Claims 1, 2, 4 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Specular Surface Inspection Using Structured Highlight and Gaussian Images, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. Appeal 2009-007112 Application 10/392,758 3 6, No. 2 April 1990, pp. 208-218 (“Nayar”) and Structured Highlight Inspection of Specular Surfaces, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 1988, pp. 44-55 (“Sanderson”). Answer 10-12. Claim 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nayar in view of Sanderson and further in view of Inoue. Answer 12. Appellants’ Contention Appellants contend that none of Jusoh, Inoue, Nayar, or Sanderson discloses either an illumination gradient or both the illumination gradient and surface gradients. Appeal Brief 11-17. Issue on Appeal Does Jusoh, Inoue, Nayar or Sanderson disclose an illumination gradient or both the illumination gradient and surface gradients? PRINCIPLE OF LAW “‘For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference.’” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 677 (Fed.Cir.1988)). “These elements must be arranged as in the claim under review,” Bond, 910 F.2d at 832 (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984)), but this is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test, Bond, 910 F.2d at 832-33 (citing Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Intl.. Trade Com'n., 808 F.2d 1471, 1479, n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Appeal 2009-007112 Application 10/392,758 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We agree with the Appellants’ conclusion, therefore we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. The Examiner relies upon the Jusoh reference to reject claims 5-11 and 15-23 (Answer 3-8). The Examiner states that Jusoh discloses “at least one illumination parameter (i.e.[,] light intensity) having an illumination gradient (i.e.[,] light intensity variation) across at least a contiguous portion (i.e.[,] segments) of said light-emitting elements (column 5, lines 42- 63).” Answer 4. Appellants argue that Jusoh describes the adjustment of light intensity of a lighting array (column 5, lines 35-63); however, Jusoh fails to disclose an illumination gradient as claimed. Appeal Brief 11. Appellants further argue that Jusoh’s disclosure in column 5, lines 50- 62, makes the Examiner interpretation of a contiguous portion of light emitting elements’ being segments of LED arrays 36, 38, and 40, a constant level of intensity across segments and not a gradient of intensity. See Appeal Brief 12; see also Answer 4. Appellants conclude that there is “no disclosure that the segments or individual LEDs of the segments are configured to illuminate the object with illumination characterized by at least one illumination parameter having an illumination gradient across at least a contiguous portion of said light-emitting element.” Appeal Brief 12. We agree with Appellants’ arguments and therefore we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-11 and 15-23. The Examiner relies upon Inoue to reject claims 12-14 (Answer 9-10). The Examiner states that Inoue discloses image data for use (intended use Appeal 2009-007112 Application 10/392,758 5 recitation, see MPEP 2111.04) in determining surface gradients at the spatial locations of the surface of the object (column 9, lines 49-67) and a sensing apparatus (i.e., 121) to produce an illumination gradient by altering the illumination intensity (i.e., transmittivity) Answer 9. However, as the Appellants argue, Inoue merely discloses that the lighting unit 112 irradiates light in all circumferential directions upon the outer periphery of the solder bump 13 and provides a description of the colors of the solder bump. There is no disclosure of an illumination source disposed in relation to the object to illuminate the object with illumination and including at least one illumination parameter having an illumination gradient. See Appeal Brief 14-15; see also Inoue column 9, lines 28-34. We agree with Appellants’ arguments and therefore we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-14. The Examiner relies upon the combination of Nayar and Sanderson to reject claims 1-4 and 24. Answer 10-13. The Examiner admits that Nayar does not disclose “illumination intensities of an illumination gradient associated with the reflected illumination to determine surface gradients at the spatial locations.” Answer 11 and 16. The Examiner relies upon Sanderson to address the deficiencies of Nayar and states that Sanderson discloses means for processing image data to discern between illumination intensities (i.e., highlight) of an illumination gradient associated with the reflected illumination. Answer 11. However, as Appellants argue, Sanderson discloses the gradients (p, q) of the described surface but fails to disclose the illumination gradient as claimed. Appeal Brief 17. We agree with Appellants’ arguments and we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 24. Appeal 2009-007112 Application 10/392,758 6 We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 because it depends upon claim 1. See Answer 12-13; Appeal Brief 17. CONCLUSION The Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-24 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited references. REVERSED kis