Ex parte Hughes et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 2000

08278153 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2000)

Application for patent filed July 21, 1994.1
1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MICHAEL G. HUGHES
and WILLIAM A. ROUSSEAU
_____________
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,1531
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, FLEMING and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 10.
The invention relates to a system which can scan and
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
2
determine the shape of irregular cylindrical objects such as
logs. On page 5 of the specification, Appellants identify
that the logs are moveably supported by headblocks into an
area proximate the saw blade. A laser projects one or more
lines of light into the area proximate the saw blade, and a
camera is positioned to observe this area. On page 6 of the
specification, Appellants identify that when the laser light
first appears on the surface of the logs, the position of the
headlocks is used to determine the horizontal profile of the
log. As the log is moved further forward, the lines of laser
light on the surface of the log are observed by the camera to
determine the straightness of the log. Appellants identify on
page 7 of the specification that this information is processed
by a control device which then adjusts the headblocks to
position the log to cut the boards.
Independent claims 1 and 9 are representative of the
invention:
1. A scanning system for determining dimensions and
shape of an object, comprising:
means for projecting at least one line onto a
scanning area, said line extending in a first direction;
means for moving the object, in a second direction
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
3
which is perpendicular to the first direction, into the
scanning area;
means for detecting an image formed on a surface of
said object which is formed by said line; and
means for monitoring a position of the object.
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
4
9. A headsaw device for cutting a log as the log is
moved along its length in a first direction comprising:
a sawblade;
means for projecting at least one line onto a
scanning area which is proximate said sawblade, said line
extending in a first direction;
means for moving the log, in a second direction which
is perpendicular to the first direction, toward said
sawblade into the scanning area;
means for detecting an image formed on the log which
is formed by said line;
means for conveying the log in the first direction to
accomplish a sawing operation on the log; and
means for monitoring a position of the log.

The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Flodin 4,262,572 Apr. 21,
1981
Olsson 4,294,149 Oct.
13, 1981
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
unpatentable over Flodin.
Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being unpatentable over Olsson.
Claims 2 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
In our view, this should be claims 2 through 8 and 102
since claim 9 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and not
addressed in the text of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
as being unpatentable over Olsson.2
Rather then reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and
the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we agree
with the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being unpatentable over Flodin. However, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
unpatentable over Olsson and the rejection of claims 2 through
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson.
We first consider the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102 as being unpatentable over Flodin. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure
which is capable of performing the recited functional
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
6
limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys. Inc.,
730 F2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). “A reference
anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention
'such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in
combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and
be in possession of the invention.'” In re Graves 69 F.3d
1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 517 U.S. 1124 (1996) (citing In re LeGrice 301 F.2d
929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962)).
Appellants argue on pages 5 and 6 of the appeal brief
(brief) that claim 1 includes the limitation that an image of
a line is formed on the surface of the object. Appellants
assert that this limitation is shown in the claim 1 recitation
of “means for detecting an image formed on a surface of said
object.” Appellants assert that Flodin teaches placing wire
in the line of sight of the operator, and does not disclose
detecting an image that is formed on the surface of the
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
7
object.
On page 6 of the Examiner’s answer (answer), the Examiner
asserts that Flodin teaches that the “line is effectively
projected onto the log as seen by the operator.” The Examiner
asserts that this teaching meets claim 1, as all claim 1
recites is projecting an image onto the log, which is taught
by Flodin.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1,
5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We find that the scope of claim 1 includes that the image
of a line is projected into the scanning area, and that the
image is formed on the surface of the object. These
limitations are found in the “means for projecting at least
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
8
one line onto a scanning area” and “means for detecting an
image formed on a surface of said object.”
We find that Flodin discloses the limitation of
projecting an image onto the surface of an object.
Specifically, Flodin discloses a log sawing apparatus where
there are multiple sets of wires in the line of sight of the
operator. The wires provide a grid for an operator to use
when making decisions concerning the cutting of the log. See
Column 3, lines 21 though 35. Further, Flodin discloses that
“the grid pattern may be projected onto the log by various
light projection means.” See Column 5, lines
63 through 65. We find that projecting the grid on the log by
light projection means, requires the lines to be on the log.
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
9
We note that with respect to the rejection of claim 1 as
being unpatentable over Flodin, Appellants have chosen not to
argue any other specific limitations of claim 1 as a basis for
patentability. We are not required to raise and/or consider
such issues. As stated by our reviewing court in In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed.
Cir. 1991), “[i]t is not the function of this court to examine
the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant,
looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.” 37
C.F.R. 1.192(a) as amended at 60 FR 14518 March 17, 1995,
which was controlling at the time of Appellants' filing the
brief, states as follows:
The brief . . . must set forth the authorities and
arguments on which the appellant will rely to
maintain the appeal. Any arguments or authorities
not included in the brief may be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences.
Also, 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) states:
For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, the argument
shall specify the errors in the rejection and, why
the rejected claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, including any specific limitations in the rejected
claims which are not described in the prior art relied
upon in the rejection.
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
10
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
11
Thus, 37 C.F.R. § 1.192 provides that just as the court is not
under any burden to raise and/or consider such issues, this
board is also not under any greater burden. For the forging
reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being unpatentable over Flodin.
We next consider the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over Olsson. We find
that the Examiner has not made a prima facie case.
Appellants argue on page 6 of the brief that Olsson does
not teach that lines are projected onto the surface of the
log. Appellants assert that the lines depicted in Olsson’s
figure
1 are not projected onto the log, but rather are virtual lines
calculated by a control device.
On page 7 of the answer, the Examiner asserts that figure
7 represents both an actual log and a computer model. As
such, the Examiner concludes that “[t]he logs really have
lines on their exteriors and are measured or detected so that
a model may be used to calculate how to process each log
accordingly.”
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
12
As stated above, we find that the scope of claim 1
includes that the projected line forms an image on the surface
of the object. We find that the scope of claim 9 similarly
includes that an image of a line is projected into the
scanning area, and that an image is formed on the surface of
the object. These limitations are found in the recitation of
“means for projecting at least one line onto a scanning area”
and “means for detecting an image formed on a surface of the
log.”
We find that Olsson teaches a system for orientating a
log in a saw mill for optimum cutting. See Column 4, lines 6
to 15. Olsson teaches that the log is observed by either two
or three cameras which traverse the log scanning it’s surface
contour. See Figures 1, 6 and 8a, the description in Column
7, line
51 through Column 8, line 37 and the description in Column
8, line 63 through 68. Olsson teaches that the scanned data
is
used to generate a model which in a simplified form defines
the contour of the log. See Figure 7, description in Column
7, lines 30 to 51 and Column 9, lines 8 through 12. We find
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
13
that Olsson fails to teach that lines are projected onto the
surface of the log. We find that the lines depicted in
Olsson’s Figure 7 are the surface contour lines of the simple
geometric representation of the log and are not lines
projected onto the surface of the log. Accordingly, we find
that Olsson does not anticipate every
limitation of either claim 1 or 9. Therefore, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being unpatentable over Olsson.
We next consider the rejection of claims 2 through 8 and
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson.
On pages 4 and 5 of the answer, the Examiner sets forth
the rejection relying on Olsson and assertions of what is
known in the art.
On pages 7 and 8 of the brief, Appellants reiterate that
Olsson does not teach that lines are projected onto the
surface of the logs.
As stated above, we find that the scope of independent
claims 1 and 9 includes that the projected line forms an image
on the surface of the object. We find that the scope of
independent claim 10 similarly includes that an image of a
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
14
line is projected into the scanning area, and that an image is
formed on the surface of the object. These limitations are
found in the recitation of “means for projecting at least one
line onto a scanning area” and “means for detecting an image
formed on a
surface of the log.” Further, we find that the scope of
claims
2 through 8 contains this limitation as claims 2 through 8 are
all ultimately dependent upon Claim 1.
As also stated above, we find that Olsson fails to
disclose projecting lines onto the surface of the log.
Similarly, we find that Olsson fails to provide a suggestion
to project lines onto the surface of the log. We find that
Olsson specifically states that the width of the log is
scanned, Column 7, lines
66 through 68. We find that Olsson's scanning cameras observe
the diameter of the log as they transverse the log and that as
such Olsson does not provide a suggestion to project a line
onto the surface of the log. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the rejection of Claims 2 though 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For the foregoing reasons we affirm the Examiner’s
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
15
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
unpatentable over Flodin. We reverse the rejection of claims
1 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over Olsson and the
rejection of claims 2 through 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson.
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
16
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:hh
Appeal No. 1997-3819
Application No. 08/278,153
17
Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, Macpeak & Seas
2100 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037