Ex Parte Laughlin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2017

14556865 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 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.
14/556,865 12/01/2014 Brian Dale Laughlin 14-220 l-US-CIP 1058
63759 7590 07/14/2017
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. LHYMN, SARAH
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2017 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN DALE LAUGHLIN, RICHARD EUGENE MURRISH,
and JAN H. VANDENBRANDE
Appeal 2017-004302
Application 14/556,865
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention combines physical and digital data to create an
“augmented reality” related to multi-layer composite structures. In one
aspect, the augmented reality environment can depict repairs made to the
structure at different times. See generally Spec. ]Hf 2, 99-103; Figs. 3, 9.
Claim 1, reproduced below with our emphasis, is illustrative:
Appeal 2017-004302
Application 14/556,865
1. A method for generating an augmented reality
presentation of a composite component, the method comprising:
recording an image of a first layer of a composite
component, the composite component comprising a plurality of
layers, wherein the first layer is one of the plurality of layers;
capturing physical data for the composite component from
a surface layer of the composite component using a number of
portable devices;
transmitting the physical data captured by the number of
portable devices to a processor unit remote from the number of
portable devices for alignment;
retrieving information related to the composite component
including the first layer of the composite component, wherein the
information comprises past repairs performed on the first layer
of the composite component;
generating in the processor unit a multi-dimensional
representation of a combined augmented reality of the composite
component including a display of the first layer of the composite
component; and
displaying in the number of portable devices the multi­
dimensional representation comprising physical data for an
image of the surface of the composite component and digital
data for an overlay of the first layer of the composite component
beyond the surface of the composite component.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fabio R. de Miranda et al., AR X-Ray: Portable Projector-
based Augmented Exploration of Buildings, PROC. of the X Symp. on
Virtual & Augmented Reality 185-95 (2008) (“de Miranda”), Mani
Golparvar-Fard et al., D4AR—A 4-Dimensional Augmented Reality Model
for Automating Construction Progress Monitoring Data Collection,
Processing and Communication, 14 J. Info. Tech, in Construction 129—
2
Appeal 2017-004302
Application 14/556,865
53 (2009) (“D4AR”), and Davies (US 2008/0030575 Al; Feb. 7, 2008).
Final Act. 6—28.1
The Examiner rejected claims 14—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over de Miranda, D4AR, Davies, and Leung (US 2011/0216089
Al; Sept. 8, 2011). Final Act. 29-31.
THE REJECTION OVER DE MIRANDA, D4AR, AND DAVIES
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that de Miranda generates an
augmented reality presentation of a composite component (e.g., a wall), and
D4AR and Davies both disclose, among other things, displaying information
related to past repairs as claimed. Final Act. 6—11. Based on the collective
teachings of de Miranda, D4AR, and Davies, the Examiner concludes that
claim 1 would have been obvious. Id.
Appellants argue that neither D4AR nor Davies teaches or suggests
retrieving or displaying information regarding past repairs as claimed.
According to Appellants, D4AR’s deviation from a plan in constructing a
building is not a repair because the disclosed technology merely highlighted
a missing part that was filled in later and, therefore, was built according to
plan. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 3—6. Nor is D4AR said to display the
correction or the return to the plan after the correction. App. Br. 12.
Appellants add that Davies, likewise, does not display past repairs because,
1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action mailed
June 30, 2016 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed October 11, 2016
(“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 16, 2016
(“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed January 17, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2017-004302
Application 14/556,865
among other things, parts are displayed as they currently exist. App. Br. 12—
13; Reply Br. 6—8.
ISSUE
Under § 103(a), has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that de Miranda, D4AR, and Davies collectively would have taught or
suggested retrieving information comprising past repairs performed on the
first layer of a composite component?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner cites D4AR or, alternatively,
Davies for teaching or suggesting retrieving or displaying information
regarding performing past repairs. See Final Act. 7—9. Compare Ans. 2—6
(articulating findings based on D4AR regarding the recited past repair
information) with Ans. 6—8 (same for Davies). We emphasize the
Examiner’s alternative reliance on these two references, for the teachings of
one reference are technically cumulative to the other at least with respect to
the disputed past repair information limitation. Because we find no error in
the Examiner’s reliance on D4AR in this regard, we, therefore, confine our
discussion to that reference unless otherwise indicated.
Turning to claim 1, the term “repair” is not defined in the
Specification, unlike at least one other term whose definition leaves no
doubt as to its meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 143 (defining “at least one of’).
Nor does claim 1 specify the nature or extent of the “past repairs” apart from
their performance on the first layer of the composite component. We,
therefore, construe the term the term “repair” with its plain meaning which is
4
Appeal 2017-004302
Application 14/556,865
defined, quite broadly, as “fix.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of
American English 1137 (3d College ed. 1993).
Given this interpretation, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance
on the example on D4AR’s pages 146 and 147 where a concrete
subcontractor misinterpreted structural drawings resulting in a mistake that
needed to be fixed or repaired. Final Act. 7; Ans. 3^4. Nor do we see error
in the Examiner’s finding that once the faulty structure resulting from this
construction blunder is repaired, D4AR at least suggests adding this repaired
condition to construction progress images to monitor progress of the project
after the repairs, or that doing so would have been at least an obvious
variation. See Ans. 4 (citing page 145 of D4AR).
We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that
correcting the subcontractor’s error on page 146 results solely in filling in a
missing part that otherwise does not deviate from the construction plan as
Appellants seem to suggest. See App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. Even if this were
the case, correcting the subcontractor’s obvious mistake involves past
repairs, namely fixing or repairing the subcontractor’s erroneous and
incomplete structure to obtain a more complete and structurally-sound
foundation consistent with the construction plan. See D4AR at 146-47. To
the extent that Appellants contend otherwise, we disagree.
We also find unavailing Appellants’ contention that Davies’ video of
repairs being performed would allegedly have no place in D4AR’s system
that augments static images. Reply Br. 8. First, this argument was not
raised in Appellants’ opening brief and is, therefore, waived as untimely.
Compare App. Br. 6—13 with Reply Br. 2—8. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
5
Appeal 2017-004302
Application 14/556,865
Second, even if this argument was timely raised (which it was not),
Appellants’ contention regarding the alleged incompatibility between
systems based on video and still images is not only unsubstantiated by any
persuasive evidence on this record, Appellants’ argument is not germane to
the limited purpose for which Davies was cited which, notably, includes
limitations other than the past repairs information limitation. See Final
Act. 8, 10 (emphasizing via bolding the features for which Davies was
cited). Although the Examiner cites Davies for teaching displaying past
repairs in the rejection (Final Act. 8), the Examiner clarifies in the Answer
that this reliance on Davies is an alternative to the teachings of D4AR in that
regard. See Ans. 6. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments regarding Davies’
alleged shortcomings regarding the past repairs information limitation do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s alternative reliance on D4AR as noted
previously.
Third, it is well settled that “a determination of obviousness based on
teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a
secondary reference’s features can be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Here, the Examiner’s
proposed combination predictably uses prior art elements according to their
established functions to yield a predictable result. See KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). On this record, we see no error in
6
Appeal 2017-004302
Application 14/556,865
the Examiner’s reliance on the cited references’ collective teachings in
concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2—6 and 13 not argued separately with particularity.
Claims 7—12
For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 7 reciting, in pertinent part, that first and second images
include past repairs to plural layers. Final Act. 14—19. Appellants’
arguments are similar to those for claim 1 (see App. Br. 13—14) and are,
therefore, unavailing for the reasons previously discussed.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7, and claims 8—12 not argued separately with particularity.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14—
17. Final Act. 29-31. Despite nominally arguing claim 14 separately,
Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 13,
and allege that Leung fails to cure those purported deficiencies. App.
Br. 15—16. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—17 under § 103(a).
7
Appeal 2017-004302
Application 14/556,865
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—17.
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
8