Ex Parte KANOUDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 201714192109 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/192,109 02/27/2014 Rui KANOU 4639-322 7002 22429 7590 08/01/2017 HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP 2318 Mill Road Suite 1400 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER LUO, KATE H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2017 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): docketing @ ipfirm. com pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com EAnastasio @ IPFirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RUI KANOU Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,1091 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “carrying out appearance inspection of an object having a line pattern, and in particular . . . wherein the object is captured by a camera and it is judged as to whether an appearance of the object is good or not by using obtained image data of 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Fanuc Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 the object.” See Spec. 1,11. 7—14. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An appearance inspection device for inspecting an appearance of an inspection object, comprising: an image storing part which stores a first image obtained by capturing a reference object corresponding to the inspection object and a second image obtained by capturing the inspection object; a teaching part which teaches, on the first image, a portion to be inspected of the inspection object as a reference inspection line, defines a reference inspection region associated with one reference inspection point on the reference inspection line, determines an inspection factor inspected within the reference inspection region, and determines a judgment condition for judging as to whether a result of inspection based on the inspection factor passes or fails; a teaching factor storing part which stores a position and a shape of the reference inspection line, a position of the reference inspection point, a position and a size of the reference inspection region, the inspection factor and the judgment condition; and an inspecting part which overlaps the reference inspection line on the second image as an actual inspection line, generates a plurality inspection points on the actual inspection line, generates an inspection region in relation to each inspection point so that a positional relationship between the inspection point and the inspection region is the same as a positional relationship between the reference inspection point and the reference inspection region, inspects each of generated inspection regions based on the inspection factor, judges as to whether each inspection point passes or fails based on the judgment condition in relation to a result of executed inspection, and comprehensively judges as to whether the inspection object passes or fails based on a result of judgment of each inspection point. 2 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 REJECTION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tachibana (JP 63-206877; published Aug. 26, 1988) and Yoon et al. (US 2012/0105617 Al; published May 3, 2012) (hereinafter “Yoon”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments2 and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the February 23, 2016 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2— 12) and (2) the December 9, 2016 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2—28). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. (1) Capturing two images Appellant argues Tachibana fails to teach or suggest two captured images (i.e., claim 1 ’s first and second images), and instead “describes one image of one object (article 1).” App. Br. 10—11 (citing Final Act. 5 (citing Tachibana Fig. 1, Abstract)). Appellant also argues Tachibana fails to teach 2 We note Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 9—10) regarding the Examiner failing to provide a full translation of the Tachibana reference have been mooted. Ans. 17 (“[F]or the purpose of Examiner[’]s Answer to Appeal Brief, [the] Examiner submits the human translation of key figures 3, 5, 6 and 10 along with the complete machine translation of Tachibana reference.”). 3 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 a captured image of a reference object, but rather “is set by the setter and is not a reference object.” See Reply Br. 8 (citing Tachibana Abstract). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Tachibana teaches or suggests two images in accordance with claim 1. See Ans. 17—18. More specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Tachibana teaches or suggests storing (i) a captured first image of a reference object (i.e., the mask pattern image of an inspection reference) and (ii) a captured second image (i.e., the article being inspected captured by a camera). Ans. 18 (citing Tachibana Figs. 1—2, Abstract). We also agree with the Examiner that “[i]t is well known to persons skilled in that art that the reference pattern image can be obtained by capturing a reference object.” Ans. 18 (citing example references teaching capturing an image of reference objects). Furthermore, capturing an image of an object is a broad concept, which includes obtaining the image for storage, such as taught by Tachibana. See Tachibana Abstract (teaching that an inspection reference is selected and stored in memory). (2) Teaching reference inspection point, line, and region Appellant argues that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon fails to teach or suggest “a teaching part which teaches, on the first image, a portion to be inspected of the inspection object as a reference inspection line,” nor which “defines a reference inspection region associated with one reference inspection point on the reference inspection line,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 5—7. Appellant argues the Examiner “failed to specify with reasonable clarity as to which element of Tachibana is considered as the recited ‘reference inspection line.’ Thus, the reference, as applied by the Examiner, does not disclose the recited feature.” App. Br. 12. Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s rejection is illogical because the 4 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 Examiner allegedly admits Tachibana does not teach “a reference inspection region associated with one reference inspection point on the reference inspection line,” and thus, “logically” cannot teach “any ‘positional relationship between the reference inspection point and the reference inspection region.’” Reply Br. 6. As to Yoon, Appellant argues the Examiner fails to “explicitly specify with reasonable clarity which elements of Yoon is/are considered as the recited ‘reference inspection line,’ ‘reference inspection region,’ and ‘reference inspection point.’” App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 13. Appellant also argues Yoon’s teachings focus on an inspection stage (i.e., comparing an actual pattern with a design pattern) rather than a teaching stage (i.e., teaching a portion of a reference to be inspected in inspected patterns by defining a reference point, line, and region), and thus, fails to teach the disputed limitation. App. Br. 18—19 (citing Yoon Figs. 2—5, Tflf 36—37, 54, 59-60, 62); Reply Br. 13. The Examiner finds the combination of Tachibana and Yoon teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 17—22; Final Act. 5—7. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Tachibana and Yoon each teach or suggest the disputed limitations. As to Tachibana,3 the Examiner finds it teaches or suggests a “mask pattern image of an inspection reference, including the binary data of a designed point and plural inspection points, [which] can be viewed as a teaching part for indicating inspected points, lines and regions.” Ans. 18—19 (citing Tachibana Figs. 1—2, Abstract); see 3 We note that although the Examiner has stated Tachibana does not “explicitly disclose” the disputed limitations, the Examiner also finds that Tachibana at least suggests (e.g., “can be viewed,” “implies”) the disputed limitations. See Ans. 5—6, 18—21, 24. 5 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 also Ans. 18—21 (citing Tachibana (machine translation) 5—6, Figs. 2, 10 (finding the master pattern teaches or suggests reference information (including implying reference points, reference lines, and reference inspection regions (“i.e. regions around check/inspection points as shown in Fig. 2”)) for use in comparing with an inspected article)). As to Yoon, the Examiner finds it also teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 24—25. For example, the Examiner finds Yoon teaches or suggests an image having design pattern data (e.g., turning points) with reference lines between the points. Ans. 24— 25 (citing Yoon Figs. 4—5, 60—61). The Examiner finds Yoon also teaches defining a reference inspection region associated with a reference inspection point on the inspection reference line via its teachings that “a predetermined range DR is derived based on the turning points or regions (SL1, SL2, SRI and SR2).” Ans. 25 (citing Yoon Fig. 5, Tflf 61—63); see also id. (citing Yoon Fig. 6, 61—63 (teaching “another region of interest (ROI) is derived within a predetermined range”)). The Examiner also finds that the teaching part, as claimed, requires providing, inter alia, the reference point, line and region, but does not limit how to detect these features — thus, Appellant’s criticism of Yoon’s teachings is inapposite. See, e.g., Ans. 23— 24. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own. For example, we agree Tachibana teaches or suggests a plurality of check points (i.e., reference inspection points), with at least two of these points defining a reference inspection line under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase. See Tachibana Fig. 2 (showing at least two check points are collinear), Abstract (teaching binary data of designated 6 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 points), Tachibana (machine translation) 5—6. We also agree with the Examiner that Tachibana teaches, or at least suggests, a reference inspection region associated with a reference inspection point. See Tachibana Fig. 2 (at least suggesting regions around check/inspection points). We also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 24) that Tachibana fails to teach the disputed limitation because it requires carrying out the teaching operation multiple times, rather than by a simple teaching operation — Appellant fails to tether this argument to the claim language. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Yoon also teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. For example, Yoon teaches, or at least suggests, defining a reference inspection region (e.g., regions SF1, SRI, SF2, SR2 or a detection region (DR)) associated with a reference inspection point (e.g., the points of SF1, SRI, SF2, SR2) on the inspection reference line (e.g., contours can include the points SF1, SRI, SF2, SR2). See Yoon Figs. 4—6; Tflf 60-63. We note Yoon teaches that “single points or regions (SF1, SRI, SF2, SR2) may be determined in comparison with the design pattern” and that “predetermined single points or regions may correspond to locations where a tangent line of the pattern contour changes.” Yoon | 62. Hence, Yoon teaches, or at least suggests, defining points, lines, and regions based on the design pattern (i.e., an image of the reference object). Id. Thus, we also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Yoon teachings focus on an inspection stage rather than a teaching stage. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.”). We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 23) that Tachibana and 7 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 Yoon are not combinable4 because “the cited portions of Yoon are directed to measurement/inspection, rather than to any teaching aspect.” (3) Inspection factor and judgment condition Appellant argues Tachibana fails to teach or suggest “a teaching part which . . . determines an inspection factor inspected within the reference inspection region, and determines a judgment condition forjudging as to whether a result of inspection based on the inspection factor passes or fails,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 9—10. More specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner fails “to specify with reasonable clarity” where Tachibana teaches the disputed limitation. App. Br. 12—13. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Tachibana teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 20. More specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Tachibana teaches: determine [ing] an inspection factor inspected within the reference inspection region (i.e. The decision processing part 8c extracts the data of the same address as a master pattern, and a bit position from the picture signal memory 8a, and compares with the data of a master pattern. Here the comparing relation or correspondence between the address data from check points of the master pattern and the bit position of the article image are inspection factors.), and determines a judgment condition for judging as to whether a result of inspection based on the inspection factor passes or fails (i.e. decision is made in processing parts in accordance with plural inspection points and the references in the memory 21a to the article 1. Synthetic decision of the mask pattern is made by a decision part 21d and 4 We do not reach Appellant’s argument in the Reply Brief concerning the Examiner’s alleged “new” rationale for combining Tachibana and Yoon (Reply Br. 13—16) because we need not rely on the alleged new rationale to address Appellant’s argument raised in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 8 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 it is sent to an output part if passes. Here, the decision is related to correspondence conditions stored in the master pattern memory 8b as master pattern information. If a total judgment is performed and it corresponds on the correspondence conditions memorized by the master pattern by the total judging part 8d based on the result, it passes, and it will become a rejection if inharmonious.) Id. (citing Tachibana Figs. 1, 10; Abstract; (machine translation) 5—6). (4) Storing positions and shapes Appellant argues Tachibana fails to teach or suggest “a teaching factor storing part which stores a position and a shape of the reference inspection line, a position of the reference inspection point, [and] a position and a size of the reference inspection region,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 13— 15. Appellant argues Tachibana instead teaches storing “only binary data of various points,” rather than storing the mask pattern. App. Br. 14 (citing Tachibana Abstract); see also Reply Br. 10-11. Hence, Tachibana fails to teach ‘“a teaching factor storing part which stores a position and a shape of the reference inspection line,... a position and a size of the reference inspection region.’” App. Br. 14—15. Appellant also argues Tachibana’s Figure 2 “shows no line, only check points.” Reply Br. 10 (citing Tachibana Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon, and Tachibana in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5; Ans. 21. More specifically, the Examiner finds Tachibana teaches, or at least suggests, storing a position and a shape of the reference inspection line, a position of the reference inspection point, a position and a size of the reference inspection region. Ans. 21 (citing Tachibana Fig. 2 (finding master pattern implies shape and line of reference pattern), 5—6 (machine 9 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 translation) (finding all check points are judged and form master pattern data). We are persuaded that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation. Tachibana teaches or suggests storing a plurality of checkpoints for the master pattern. See Tachibana Fig. 2, Abstract, 5—6 (machine translation). These checkpoints collectively define the master pattern, including at least suggesting the shape and position of the reference points, lines, and regions — the collection of points and their positions together provide for, or at least suggest, reference lines and regions. See id.; see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). We also note that Yoon’s teachings, as discussed above, also teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See Yoon Figs. 4—6; 60-63. (5) Inspecting part Appellant argues that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon, and Tachibana in particular, fails to teach or suggest “an inspecting part” in accordance with the claims. App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 11. More specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner unreasonably cites the same portion of Tachibana for teaching the claimed “inspecting part” as is cited for the “teaching part.” App. Br. 15—16 (citing Final Act. 5—6). Appellant further argues “[t]he cited portions of Tachibana cannot be interpreted to both determine an inspection factor (if any) and a judgment condition (if any), and inspect/judge based on such inspection factor (if any) and judgment condition (if any).” App. Br. 16. 10 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 The Examiner finds the combination of Tachibana and Yoon, and Tachibana in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 21—22. More specifically, the Examiner finds Tachibana teaches or suggests, inter alia, “extracting] the data of the same address as a master pattern, and a bit position from the picture signal memory 8a, and comparing] with the data of a master pattern,” where “[comparisons are performed on all points of a master pattern between the data from article image based on correspondence conditions stored by master pattern.” Ans. 22 (citing Tachibana Figs. 1, 10; Abstract; (machine translation) 5—6). The Examiner finds that Tachibana teaches deciding whether an article passes based on a plurality of the inspection points correspondence with the mask pattern. Ans. 22—23 (citing Tachibana Figs. 1, 10; Abstract; (machine translation) 5—6). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument and adopt the Examiner’s findings as out own. The cited portions of Tachibana teach or suggest both the claimed “inspecting part” and “teaching part,” as discussed above, with the teachings of each intertwined in the cited portions. See Tachibana Figs. 1,10; Abstract; (machine translation) 5—6. We also disagree with Appellant (Reply Br. 11) that the combination of Yoon and Tachibana fails to teach or suggest the claimed “positional relationship.” Rather, Tachibana teaches or suggests that the check points’ position and suggested region are correlated for the inspected article and reference pattern. See, e.g., Tachibana Abstract (teaching that “the article 1 is transferred to a prescribed position”), (machine translation) 5 (teaching capturing an image of the article for processing when the inspected article is in a predetermined position); see also Yoon Figs. 4—6; ^flf 60-63. 11 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 (6) Not on a contour Appellant argues the combination of Tachibana and Yoon fails to teach or suggest that “the reference inspection line is not on a contour of the reference object,” as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 25; Reply Br. 17. Appellant argues Yoon instead teaches that the design pattern (i.e., reference inspection line(s)) is a contour. App. Br. 25. Appellant also argues the Examiner fails “to clarify what element of Yoon is readable on the recited reference inspection point,” and that “it is entirely unclear as to which point on the dot lines in Fig. 5 of Yoon is considered by the Examiner at the recited ‘reference inspection point. Reply Br. 17. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon, and Yoon in particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 27. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Yoon, when combined with Tachibana, teaches or suggests a reference inspection line that is not on a contour of the reference object. See Ans. 27 (citing Yoon Fig. 5,H 60—61). More specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Yoon, when combined with Tachibana as discussed above, teaches or suggests “a predetermined range DR [which] is derived based on the turning points or regions (SL1, SL2, SRI and SR2).” As shown in Fig. 5, the reference line (i.e. dot lines) which outlines the predetermined range DR is not on a contour of the reference object.” Ans. 27 (citing Yoon Figs. 4—5, 11 60-61). For example, Yoon teaches that “the detection region (DR) includ[es] one or more single points or regions (SL1, SRI, SL2, SR2) of the pattern contour on the pattern image.” Yoon 160. As discussed above, the combined teachings of Tachibana and Yoon teach or suggest that these points can be reference inspection points, which can be displaced from the 12 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 reference contour, and can form reference lines. See Yoon Fig. 5 (teaching, inter alia, dotted lines for SL1, SRI, SL2, and SR2 can be displaced from the contour); see also Yoon Fig. 6, ]Hf 68—71; Tachibana Figs. 1—2, Abstract. (7) Only one reference inspection point Appellant argues that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon fails to teach or suggest “in the teaching process, only one reference inspection point is defined on the reference inspection line,” as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 25. Appellant argues Tachibana instead teaches multiple inspection points. Id. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in the Answer in referencing a “region,” and if the Examiner meant to refer to a “line” in the finding, such a finding would contradict the Examiner’s alleged position that Tachibana does not disclose the claimed teaching part. Reply Br. 18. Appellant also argues the Examiner fails to provide sufficient rationale to support the finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to define only one turning point on the pattern contour. App. Br. 25. The Examiner finds that the combination of Tachibana and Yoon teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 27—28; Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds Yoon teaches “in the teaching process, only one reference inspection point is defined on the reference inspection line (i.e. a pattern image in Fig. 4 with turning points or regions (SL1, SL2, SRI and SR2) on the pattern contour.” Ans. 27—28 (citing Yoon Figs. 4—5, 60-61). The Examiner further finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to define only one turning point on the pattern contour.” Ans. 28. Furthermore, the Examiner finds Tachibana also teaches or suggests “only one inspection point in each of reference line region as shown in Fig. 2.” Id. 13 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As to Tachibana’s teachings, we find it clear that the finding refers to a reference line (i.e., the word “region” was inadvertently included), including because (i) a “reference line region” is a non-sensical phrase here and (ii) the finding regards claim 12, which does not itself refer to “region.” Furthermore, as discussed above, the Examiner finds Tachibana teaches or suggests the claimed teaching part, and, thus, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument of contradiction. See Section 2, supra', see also Tachibana Fig. 2 (teaching, or at least suggesting, having only one reference point for at least one reference line (e.g., short contour segment). We also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument (which largely is just an assertion) that the Examiner fails to provide sufficient rationale supporting the finding that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to define only one turning point on the pattern contour in the context of Yoon’s teachings. (8) Performed before Appellant argues the combination of Tachibana and Yoon fails to teach or suggest “defining the reference inspection region associated with one reference inspection point on the reference inspection line is performed before said overlapping the reference inspection line on the second image as the actual inspection line,” as recited in claim 13. App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 18—19. Appellant argues that Yoon instead teaches “that the turning points SL/SR are detected after overlapping the design pattern (Fig. 4) on the pattern image (Fig. 3). See also Yoon at the description of Fig. 5.” Reply Br. 18-19. 14 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 The Examiner finds Yoon teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 28. More specifically, the Examiner finds Yoon teaches or suggests: a pattern image in Fig. 4 with turning points or regions (SL1, SL2, SRI and SR2) on the pattern contour. Here the turning points are defined based on the pattern contour of the pattern image and are part of [the] design pattern. They impl[y that] the reference inspection regions need[] to be detected during inspection. It is of course defined before the overlapping the design pattern on the pattern image. Ans. 28 (citing Yoon Figs. 4—5, ^flf 60-61). We find that the disputed limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of Tachibana and Yoon’s teachings. See Section 2, supra. There are only a finite number of times (i.e., before, during, or after) to overlap the reference inspection line, and picking one of a finite number of known solutions to a known problem would have been obvious here. See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”). CONCLUSION Based on our findings and reasoning above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11—13, as well as claims 2—10 and 14— 15 Appeal 2017-006321 Application 14/192,109 16, as Appellant does not provide separate arguments for their patentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16. 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 16 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation