Ex Parte Gordon-Ingram et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2017

13257622 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2017)

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.
13/257,622 09/20/2011 Iain R. Gordon-Ingram 150809 5189
27049 7590 08/1^
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2017 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):
OfficeAction27049@oliff.com
j armstrong @ oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAIN R. GORDON-INGRAM and
ANDREW P. GRIBBLE
Appeal 2016-001181
Application 13/257,622
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-001181
Application 13/257,622
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12—16, and 19-24. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral arguments were heard on August 1, 2017; a transcript of
that hearing will be added to the record in due time.
We affirm-in-part.2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to position encoders that use a readhead
to detect markings on a scale. Spec. 2. Appellants’ improvement is to
automatically adapt the exposure time or the image capture time based on
relative speed of the readhead and scale. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitation shown in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A position encoder apparatus, comprising:
a scale comprising a series of position features; and
a readhead configured to read the series of position
features via a process for capturing a snapshot, the process
being automatically adaptable so as to change, dependent on the
relative speed between the scale and the readhead, at least one
°f-
(i) the feature capture duration of the readhead during
the process, and
1 Appellants identify Renishaw PLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Sept. 20, 2011, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed Sept. 25, 2014, the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”) filed June 18, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
Sept. 3, 2015, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Nov. 13, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-001181
Application 13/257,622
(ii) the duration that electromagnetic radiation
("EMR") is emitted by at least one electromagnetic radiation
("EMR") source during the process.3
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Romanov (US 7,763,875 B2, July 27, 2010) and D’Hooge
(US 6,636,354 Bl, October 21, 2003). Final Act. 2-4.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 20—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Romanov, D’Hooge, and Rowe (US 5,210,409, May 11, 1993).
Final Act. 5—7.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Romanov
and Rowe. Final Act. 7—8.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 14, 15, 24
A. “Feature Capture Duration ”
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Romanov teaches
the claimed “feature capture duration.” Final Act. 3 (citing Romanov 5:24—
46). Appellants contend the Examiner errs by regarding Romanov’s “frame
rate” to be equivalent to the claimed “feature capture duration” because a
3 In the event of further prosecution in this case, the Examiner and
Appellants are advised to consider whether the claim meets the definiteness
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, in view of mixed
apparatus and process limitations in the claim. See IPXL Holdings v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Katz Interactive
Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
3
Appeal 2016-001181
Application 13/257,622
frequency at which a radiation source flashes, i.e., flash rate, is not a
duration of time. App. Br. 5, 8, 9.
“[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation during examination.” In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Reviewing the Specification, we find that
no special definition is given the phrase “feature capture duration.”
Accordingly, we apply the plain meaning of the claimed phrase in our
analysis. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We agree with the Examiner that Romanov’s snapshot timing,
established by its frame rate, falls within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “feature capture duration.” In this regard, Romanov states:
The photodetector array 106 or matrix captures snapshot images
of the underlying surface 120 (as shown in FIG. 1) at a frame
rate, F, preferably utilizing a high speed, high rate freeze-frame
electronic shutter (not shown).
Romanov 5:29-32 (emphasis added). Romanov also teaches adjustment of
the frame rate of capturing snapshot images:
One desirable enhancement to positional sensing systems
described herein includes smart frame rate adjustment for
optimized fast travel to a target location. A CMOS imager, as
compared to other array detectors (CCD, gated arrays, etc.), can
accomplish certain processing functions at the pixel level. For
example, pixels can be binned to increase frame rate at the
expense of spatial resolution. Such functionality may be usefully
applied to implement advanced travel algorithms. In one
embodiment, the readhead utilizes binned high frame rates (high
travel speeds) to arrive in the vicinity of the destination, with
subsequent slower, more precise zooming in without pixel
binning and an accompanying lower travel speed utilized when
the readhead is proximate to the target location.
Romanov 12:35—47.
4
Appeal 2016-001181
Application 13/257,622
We interpret the claimed “capturing a snapshot” to encompass capture
of a plurality of snapshots because the indefinite article “a” encompasses
both singular and plural meanings in an open-ended claim with the
“comprising” transition. Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512
F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(citing KCJCorp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
From the example of the Figure below, it is clear that changing the
frame rate, as taught by Romanov, also changes the cumulative capture
duration of a feature (i.e., the claimed “feature capture duration”).
Capture Duration Frame Rate 1
Figure shows Cumulative Capture Duration of Frame Rate 2 is 5 Times that of Frame Rate 1
Specifically, with Frame Rate 1, only a single unit of capture duration occurs
during a given time period, whereas, with Frame Rate 2, five times the
single unit of capture duration occurs during the same time period. Thus, as
Romanov’s frame rate increases, so does the cumulative capture duration of
5
Appeal 2016-001181
Application 13/257,622
a feature over a given time period (i.e., 1 unit of capture duration for Frame
rate 1, a cumulative 5 units of capture duration for Frame Rate 2).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, we do not agree the Examiner
relies on Romanov’s “frame rate” per se to teach the claimed “feature
capture duration.” See App. Br. 5, 8, 9, Ans. 9. Instead, we interpret the
Examiner’s findings to rely on Romanov’s “frame rate” as establishing a
cumulative capture duration over a given time period, as explained with
respect to the Figure shown above.
Appellants’ arguments concerning “binning” in Romanov (12:35—47)
do not negate the Examiner’s findings. See Reply Br. 3^4. “Binning” is
merely the summing of adjacent pixels into one value to decrease the
amount of data, and therefore, the time, needed to process it. Appellants
acknowledge that in Romanov’s “binning” process, the capture duration
remains constant. Id. The Figure shown above explains how we understand
the Examiner to have interpreted Romanov as teaching the claimed “feature
capture duration” as cumulative snapshot capture durations over a time
period, even with an individual capture duration that is constant. Thus, we
are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Romanov fails to teach or
suggest the claimed “feature capture duration.”
B. “Automatically Adaptable ”
The Examiner finds that Romanov fails to disclose that its snapshot
capture process is automatically adaptable, as recited in the claims, and thus
relies on D’Hooge to teach this feature. Final Act. 3. Appellants contend
the claims are directed to the field of “position encoder apparatuses,”
whereas D’Hooge resides in the unrelated field of microscopy. App. Br. 9,
10. Therefore, Appellants assert, D’Hooge is non-analogous art. The
6
Appeal 2016-001181
Application 13/257,622
Examiner finds that D’Hooge is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention, namely, the image processing art. Ans. 10.
A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the
reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even
if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same
field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In re Icon Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d
656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Manual of Patent Examining
Procedures (“MPEP”) § 2141.01(a).
We agree with the Examiner that D’Hooge is in the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention. If a prior art reference has essentially the
same structure and function as the claimed invention, it is very likely they
are in the same field of endeavor. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). D’Hooge discloses automatically turning lights on, taking a
snapshot, and turning lights off for a set (i.e., adaptable) duration time so
that a user does not need to be present to control the lights and take
snapshots with an imaging device. D’Hooge 16:58—17:13. Similarly, the
claimed invention is directed to snapshot capture with automatic adaptation
using a readhead incorporating an electromagnetic radiation (“EMR”)
sensitive detector. See claims 1, 14, and 15, Spec. 3:25 4:2. Although
D’Hooge mentions application of its technology to a microscope whereas
Appellants’ invention is applied to a position encoder, we agree with the
Examiner the similarities in structure (lights and image detectors) and
function (capturing snapshots of a feature using automatic adaptation) are
7
Appeal 2016-001181
Application 13/257,622
such that they are in the same field of endeavor. See also In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325 26 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding a prior art toothbrush
analogous to the claimed hair brush because toothbrushes are structurally
similar to hair brushes, and could be used to brush facial hair).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1,14, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 21—23
Claims 21—23 depend from claims 1,14, and 15, respectively, and
each recite “the feature capture duration is the time during which an image
sensor of the readhead is continuously exposed, and the duration that
electromagnetic radiation is emitted is the time during which
electromagnetic radiation is continuously emitted by the at least one EMR
source.” Appellants argue Romanov discloses varying the frame and flash
rate, and not varying the time during which the multi-pixel optical array
transducer 106 is continuously exposed during each snapshot. App. Br. 11.
We agree with Appellants that the cited parts of Romanov do not
teach or suggest the claimed feature. We further agree with Appellants that
the cited parts of Rowe fail to cure the deficiencies of Romanov with respect
to claims 21—23. App. Br. 12.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7,
9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, which depend from claims 1, 14, and 15. For the
reasons stated for claims 1,14, and 15, we sustain the rejection of these
dependent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
8
Appeal 2016-001181
Application 13/257,622
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,3,4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12—
16, 19, 20, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9