11298862 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2011)

Ex Parte Furry

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 29, 2011

11298862 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte DAVID W. FURRY _____________ Appeal 2009-009392 Application 11/298,862 Technology Center 2800 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THOMAS S. HAHN and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-21, and 23-25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. 1 Claims 12, 13, 17, 18, and 22 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2009-009392 Application 11/298,862 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for visually detecting gas leaks using a passive infrared camera system that utilizes a single filter configuration under variable ambient conditions. See Spec: 4-5. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of visually detecting a gas leak of any one or more chemicals of a group of predetermined chemicals, the gas leak emanating from a component of a group of components in different locations, the method comprising: aiming a passive infrared camera system towards the component, wherein the passive infrared camera system comprises: a lens, a refrigerated portion defined by the interior of a Dewar flask, the refrigerated portion comprising therein: an infrared sensor device; and a single filter configuration comprising at least one fixed optical bandpass filter, each filter fixed along an optical path between the lens and the infrared sensor device, wherein at least part of the aggregate pass band for the single filter configuration is within an absorption band for each of the predetermined chemicals and wherein the aggregate pass band for the single filter configuration is at least about 20 nm; and a refrigeration system adapted to cool the refrigerated portion, the refrigeration system comprising a closed-cycle Stirling cryocooler; filtering an infrared image associated with the area of the gas leak under normal operating and ambient conditions for the component with the at least one optical bandpass filter; receiving the filtered infrared image of the gas leak with the infrared sensor device; electronically processing the filtered infrared image received by the infrared sensor device to provide a visible image of the gas leak Appeal 2009-009392 Application 11/298,862 3 under variable ambient conditions of the area around the leak depending on the location of the component, the time of the imaging, and the position of the camera system with respect to the leak; and visually detecting the leak based on the visible image under the variable ambient conditions. REFERENCES Faulhaber US 4,390,785 Jun. 28, 1983 Pundak US 5,197,295 Mar. 30, 1993 Brown US 5,229,798 Jul. 20, 1993 Sato US 5,430,293 Jul. 4, 1995 Cole US 5,550,373 Aug. 27, 1996 A. M. Fowler and J. Heynssens, Evaluation of the SBRC 256x256 InSb Focal Plane Array and Preliminary Specifications for the 1024x1024 InSb Focal Plane Array, Proc. SPIE Vol. 1946, Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation, pp. 25-32 (1993) (“Fowler”). REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 3. Claims 1, 11, 14, 15, 19-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Cole and Pundak. Ans. 4-7. Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Cole, Pundak, and Faulhaber. Ans. 7-9. Appeal 2009-009392 Application 11/298,862 4 Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Cole, Pundak, and Brown. Ans. 9-10. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Cole, Pundak, and Fowler. Ans. 10. ISSUES 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejections Appellant argues on pages 15-16 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is in error. The arguments present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the Specification does not contain support for the amended claim limitation that requires electronically processing the filtered infrared image depending on the location of the component, the time of imaging, and the position of the camera system with respect to the leak? 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections Appellant argues on pages 16-32 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, 13-15, and 19-25 is in error. See Final Action 3-7. The arguments present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Sato in view of Pundak and Cole discloses a single filter configuration?2 2 Appellant makes additional arguments regarding claims 1-11, 14-16, 19- 21, and 23-25. App. Br. 16-32. We do not reach these additional issues since we conclude that this issue is dispositive. Appeal 2009-009392 Application 11/298,862 5 ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejections Independent claims 1, 21, 23, and 24 have been amended to require electronic processing of a filtered infrared image depending upon the location of the component, the time of imaging, and the position of the camera with respect to the leak. Claims 2-11, 14-16, 19-20, and 25 are dependent upon claim 1. The Examiner finds that the Specification does not contain support for this limitation. Ans. 13. We agree. Appellant provides citations to the Specification that describe the handling of the system (by hand, on a vehicle, etc.), different applications for the use of the system (inspecting methane regulator stations, industrial plants, underground gas distribution lines, etc.), and the use of the system under different ambient conditions. App. Br. 15-16. While these citations to the Specification describe different situations or scenarios in which the system may be used, they do not describe how the electronic processing of the image is dependent upon the location of the component, the time of the imaging, or the position of the camera with respect to the leak. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 35 U.S.C. §103(a) rejections Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of appealed pending claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-21, and 23-25. Independent claims 1, 21, 23, and 24 require an infrared camera system containing a single filter configuration that visually detects a leak under variable ambient conditions. The Examiner finds that Sato in view of Cole Appeal 2009-009392 Application 11/298,862 6 and Pundak discloses this limitation. Ans. 15. Specifically, the Examiner finds that while Sato discloses changing filters in conventional gas monitoring systems, Sato’s system does not require a filter change in at least one operating mode. Ans. 15-16. Appellant argues that Sato discloses that under different temperatures or sunlight, i.e., variable ambient conditions, the image displayed may be too bright or too dark. App. Br. 17. In order to compensate for the over-saturated or washed-out image, Appellant argues that Sato reduces the bandwidth of the filter to half bandwidth. App. Br. 17. We agree with Appellant’s interpretation of the reference and the additional teachings of Faulhaber, Brown, and Fowler do not make up for the deficiencies noted above. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Appellant’s Specification did not contain support for the amended claim limitation that requires electronically processing the filtered infrared image depending on the location of the component, the time of imaging, and the position of the camera system with respect to the leak. The Examiner erred in finding that Sato in view of Pundak and Cole discloses a single filter configuration. SUMMARY The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11, 14-16, 19-21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. Appeal 2009-009392 Application 11/298,862 7 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). AFFIRMED msc