Ex parte Gabello et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 4, 1998

08099289 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 4, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 24, 1993. 1
According to the appellants, it is a continuation-in-part of
application 08/067,434, filed May 24, 1993. However, the
examiner has indicated on the file wrapper of the application
that the alleged continuation data is incorrect.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte LOUIS R. GABELLO,
LEON R. ZOELLER and JAMES P. GUY
_____________
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099, 2891
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 22-25,
27-29, 31-34, 36-38 and 40-41. Claims 5, 9, 11, 15, 19, 21, 26,
30, 35, 39 and 42 have been canceled. No claim has been allowed.
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099,289
2
References relied on by the Examiner
Hunt et al. (Hunt) Pat No. 4,922,337 May 1, 1990
Benton, "Fiber Optics and Video: A Background," SMPTE Journal,
July 1988, pp. 546-555.
The Rejection on Appeal
In the final Office action (Paper No. 8), claims 1-4, 6-14,
16-25, 27-34, and 36-42 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt, Benton, and Dittman et
al., U.S. Patent 5,239,376. However, in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 18), the examiner withdrew his reliance on Dittman et
al., canceled the outstanding rejection and entered a new ground
of rejection based solely on Hunt and Benton.
Subsequent to the final rejection, claims 1, 12, 22 and 32
were amended and claims 9, 11, 19, 21, 30, 39 and 42 were
canceled. Thus, the rejection on appeal is that of claims 1-4,
6-8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 22-25, 27-29, 31-34, 36-38 and 40-41
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt and Benton.
The Invention
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
inspecting a product, which employs scanning of the product
surface to produce video signals. Claims 1, 12, 22 and 32 are
the independent claims, of which claim 1 is representative and is
reproduced below:
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099,289
3
1. A method for inspecting a product, comprising:
scanning a surface of said product with a scanning device
and creating scan lines each with video data signals
corresponding to said surface, wherein each said scan line
includes non-useful or dead (i.e., dark) video data signals;
generating information signals related to said product,
wherein said information signals are created external to said
scanning device;
transmitting both said video data signals and said
information signals along at least one optical fiber to a
computer processing unit, wherein said information signals are
multiplexed into said non-useful or dead (i.e., dark) video data
signals to create a sequential stream of data for transmission to
said computer processing unit; and
processing said video data signals and said information
signals to evaluate the condition of said product.
Opinion
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-
14, 16-18, 20, 22-25, 27-29, 31-34, 36-38 and 40-41.
Each of the independent claims 1, 12, 22 and 32 requires
scanning of a surface of the product being inspected to create
plural scan lines each with video data signals corresponding to
the surface. Moreover, each independent claim specifically
recites that each scan line includes "non-useful or dead (i.e.,
dark) video data signals." Additionally, each independent claim
further requires the multiplexing of externally created
information signals "into said non-useful or dead (i.e., dark)
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099,289
4
video data signals to create a sequential stream of data for
transmission."
The issues on appeal center about the meaning to be accorded
the claim term "non-useful or dead (i.e., dark) video data
signals." The examiner has interpreted the term so broadly as to
read on the vertical blanking intervals which occur before and
after the valid video data of each scanned line (answer at 4-5).
We disagree. The examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable and
without adequate basis in the record.
In the specification from the bottom of page nine to the top
of page 10, it is stated:
Moreover, a common feature of linear CCD [charge
coupled device] arrays is that there are normally
latent periods (or dead spaces) which occur before and
after valid video within one scan line. The present
invention utilizes these latent periods to transmit the
non-video information. In this way, the time required
to transmit the combined information is minimized.
The examiner recognized the vertical blanking intervals
between scanned lines as latent periods themselves. Based on the
above-quoted text, the examiner concluded that vertical blanking
intervals between scanned lines can constitute the claimed "non-
useful or dead (i.e., dark) video signals." See bottom of page 4
to top of page 5 in the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 18).
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099,289
5
Even assuming that the term "latent periods" can refer to
non-useful or dead spaces before and after valid video within one
scanned line as is described in the specification, and also to
vertical blanking intervals between scanned lines as urged by the
examiner, that does not render the claim term "non-useful or dead
(i.e., dark) video data signals" so broad as to read on both
types of latent periods. Only the first type of latent period is
described and referred to by the appellants in connection with
the claimed "non-useful or dead (i.e., dark) video data signals."
The term "latent periods" appears nowhere in the claims. It is
the interpretation of the claim term "non-useful or dead (i.e.,
dark) video data signals" that is at issue, not the
interpretation of the term "latent periods" which simply appears
as a descriptive term in the specification.
It is unreasonable to read the above-quoted text from the
specification as describing the vertical blanking interval
between scanned lines. The examiner is wrong in finding (answer
on the top of page 5) that Hunt’s vertical blanking interval is
the same as the dead spaces in the appellants’ specification.
The appellants’ specification does not describe the vertical
blanking interval between scanned lines as the non-useful or dead
(i.e., dark) video data signals. See also original claim 11 of
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099,289
6
the appellants’ specification, which reads: "A method as recited
in Claim 2, wherein said method utilizes non-useful or dead
(i.e., dark) video pixels to transmit said information signals."
Additionally, there are other errors in the examiner’s
analysis. The vertical blanking interval, as a latent period,
refers to a period of time and is not a video data signal. The
claim term at issue refers to non-useful or dead (i.e., dark)
"video data signals" and not simply a period of time. All of the
independent claims require the multiplexing of externally
generated information signals into the non-useful or dead (i.e.,
dark) video data signals to create a sequential stream of data
for transmission. To the extent that the examiner has regarded
this claim feature as being satisfied simply by Hunt’s
transferring of the video data signals of each scanned line to a
central storage unit during its vertical blanking interval
(examiner’s answer on page 4), that is erroneous.
Also, even in applying the misplaced view which treats the
vertical blanking interval of Hunt as the claimed non-useful or
dead (i.e., dark) video data signals, the examiner made
additional errors. According to the examiner (answer on page 4)
Hunt’s sync means multiplexes synchronization signals into the
video data signals for subsequent image analysis. However, the
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099,289
7
appellants correctly point out that the synchronization signals
of Hunt are not added to the video data signals during Hunt’s
vertical blanking intervals. In the reply brief on page 4, the
appellants state:
Col. 6, lines 30-36 in Hunt et al. only discloses
adding synchronization signals to the image signal, but
these synchronization signals are not added and in fact
could not be added during the vertical blanking period.
The vertical blanking period is the time at which
charge which has just been stored in optically
sensitive portions of an array is shifted out of the
array to generate data representative of the image.
Only when the charge has been shifted out of the array
to form the image signal could information signals be
added to the image signal and this would be after the
vertical blanking period. Hunt et al. does not teach
or suggest anyway to add information signals into the
optically sensitive portions of the array to be
transferred during the vertical blanking period.
We agree with the appellants that in connection with Hunt,
the examiner has recognized the vertical blanking interval as
that time period during which the charges on the photosensitive
image section 22 are shifted to a storage section 24. See
examiner’s answer at page 4, lines 12-16, and page 7, lines 9-14.
The examiner nowhere explained how the synchronization signals of
Hunt can be deemed as being added to the video data signals
during the vertical blanking interval. Thus, the appellants are
correct that even under the examiner’s unreasonable
interpretation of the claim term "non-useful or dead (i.e., dark)
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099,289
8
video signals," Hunt has not been shown to satisfy the claim
feature of multiplexing information signals into the non-useful
or dead (i.e., dark) video data signals.
In the supplemental answer from the bottom of page 1 to the
top of page 2, the examiner stated:
Concerning the "dark" video data, the examiner
maintains that these data are not a direct result of
the invention, but a phenomenon that occurs due to
uneven illumination inherent in most illumination
systems, especially stroboscopic illumination system.
(Emphasis in original.)
What exactly does "a direct result of the invention" mean is
unclear. But whether or not a feature is a direct result of the
invention, it still has to be met if it is a part of the claimed
invention and cannot be ignored. It appears that the examiner is
saying that every scanned line of a product surface will include
"dark" video pixels or data signals. But the claimed invention
requires more than that. The claimed invention calls for a
specific manner of using those "dark" pixels or video data
signals, i.e., the multiplexing of information signals into the
place of the "dark" video signals to create a sequential data
stream for transmission. It is this more particular feature
which is not disclosed or reasonably suggested by the prior art
as applied by the examiner.
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099,289
9
The examiner relied on Benton to show the use of optical
fiber for transmission of video data signals (answer on page 5).
But Benton, as applied by the examiner, does not make up for any
of the deficiencies of Hunt as discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 22-25, 27-29, 31-34,
36-38 and 40-41 as being unpatentable over Hunt and Benton.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 22-
25, 27-29, 31-34, 36-38 and 40-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hunt and Benton is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099,289
10
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-2440
Application 08/099,289
11
Gunnar Leinberg Esq.
Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle
Clinton Square
P.O. Box 1051
Rochester, New York 14603