Ex Parte Leone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2018

14032415 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018)

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.
AL058 1003
EXAMINER
GEROLEO, FRANCIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/032,415 09/20/2013
01/16/20187590
Alces Technology, Inc.
Rob Christensen, CEO
3100 West Pinebrook Road, Suite 2500
Park City, UT 84098
Matthew A Leone
01/16/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW A. LEONE and DAVID M. BLOOM
Appeal 2017-003806
Application 14/032,4151
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CARL L. SILVERMAN,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—7 and 9. Claim 8 is cancelled. Claims 10—19
are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Alces Technology, Inc. as the Real Party in Interest.
(Br. 3.)
Appeal 2017-003806
Application 14/032,415
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to structured
light systems based on temporally modulated light sources and static spatial
light modulators. (Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A structured light system comprising:
a first light source for illuminating a first static spatial light
modulator patterned with a first spatial phase of a base
pattern, and a first lens for projecting the first spatial phase
of the pattern onto an object;
a second light source for illuminating a second static spatial light
modulator patterned with a second spatial phase of the
base pattern, and a second lens for projecting second
spatial phase of the pattern onto the object;
a third light source for illuminating a third static spatial light
modulator patterned with a third spatial phase of the base
pattern, and a third lens for projecting the third spatial
phase of the pattern onto the object;
a camera separated from the first, second and third static spatial
light modulators by a baseline distance;
wherein the first, second and third light sources are turned on and
off in succession to project three spatial phases of the base
spatial pattern in succession, each light source being
temporally modulated during times that it is turned on;
wherein the camera receives information from the first, second
and third light sources pertaining to temporal modulation
characteristics of each phase of the base spatial pattern;
wherein the camera demodulates the spatial phase of patterns that
appear on the camera's image sensor, with spatial phase
demodulation being aided by temporal demodulation of
the same signal, and determines distance to points on the
object based on structured-light geometrical relationships
including the baseline distance and the demodulated
spatial phase of patterns viewed by the camera.
2
Appeal 2017-003806
Application 14/032,415
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—3 and 5—7 under 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feldkhun et al. (US 2010/0008588 Al,
published Jan. 14, 2010) and Bloom et al. (US 2011/0169915 Al, published
July 14, 2011). (Final Act. 3-8.)2
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Feldkhun, Bloom and Ben-Moshe et al. (US
2012/0218464 Al, published Aug. 30, 2012). (Final Act. 8.)
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Feldkhun, Bloom and Rodrigue et al. (US
2012/0229606 Al, published Sep. 13, 2012). (Final Act. 9.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:3
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Feldkhun
and Bloom teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations, “first
[and second and third] static spatial light modulator patterned with a first
[and second and third] spatial phase of the base pattern.” (Br. 10—14.)
2 See Spec. 11 (“This application claims priority benefit from US
61/705,000, ‘Structured light systems,’ filed on 09/24/2012 and incorporated
herein by reference.”).
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 28, 2016) (herein,
“Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Jan. 14, 2016) (herein, “Final Act.”);
and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Aug. 29, 2016) (herein, “Ans.”) for the
respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-003806
Application 14/032,415
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 3—9) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. (Ans. 10-14.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by
the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding Feldkhun and Bloom teach or suggest the claim limitations
at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Feldkhun of estimating a
location on an object in a three-dimensional scene by simultaneously
illuminating the object with multiple different radiation patterns produced by
directing radiation (e.g., from laser diodes) through modulating structures,
and detecting and processing the resulting patterns reflected from the object.
(Final Act. 3—5; Feldkhun Fig. 1, || 39, 41.) The Examiner also relies on
the disclosure in Bloom of a structured light system that measures the three
dimensional shape of objects by passing a light source through a linear array
light modulator to project onto an object successive stripe patterns of
varying phase with respect to each other (e.g., 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees),
and detecting and processing the resulting patterns reflected from the object.
(Final Act. 5—6; Bloom Figs. 1, 8, Tflf 16, 24, 34—38.)
In the final action, the Examiner specifically relies on one example of
a modulating structure disclosed in Feldkhun — digital micro-mirror device
(DMD) arrays — as satisfying the claim requirement of static spatial light
modulators. (Final Act. 4; Feldkhun 141.) Appellants argue these
4
Appeal 2017-003806
Application 14/032,415
modulators are not static because they use many moveable micromirrors to
turn pixels on and off to rapidly vary the modulation of the light. (Br. 12.)
In response, the Examiner concludes that “static” in the context of the claims
encompasses this device because the overall structure is not moved from one
position to another. (Ans. 10.) However, as Appellants point out, the
Specification rules out this broad construction:
A static spatial light modulator is one that has a fixed spatial
pattern that it imparts to light passing through it... . A static
spatial light modulator may be moveable, but its spatial pattern
cannot be reconfigured.
(Br. 11; Spec. 113.)
In the Answer, the Examiner alternatively relies on the disclosure in
Feldkhun of pattern masks in the form of gratings upon which a static
pattern is optically written, with light passing through amplitude modulated
over time in order to create the successive patterns. (Ans. 11; Feldkhun |
39.) Noting that Appellants do not address this alternative, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that this embodiment satisfies the claim requirement
of static spatial light modulators.
Appellants further argue Feldkhun describes systems that are
appropriate for “single-shot events,” projecting many different patterns onto
an object simultaneously, which “is contrary to the claimed first, second and
third spatial phases of one base pattern.” (Br. 13.) However, for this aspect
of the claims, the Examiner relies on the combination of Feldkhun, which
discloses modulating structures which modulate the phase of the projected
light, and the disclosure in Bloom of projecting onto an object successive
stripe patterns of varying phases. (Ans. 11—12.) Again, Appellants do not
attempt to rebut this finding, and we are not persuaded of error. In re
5
Appeal 2017-003806
Application 14/032,415
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary
skill in the art.”).
Appellants also argue, because Feldkhun describes systems
appropriate for single-shot events, whereas Bloom operates with sequential
phases of a base pattern, the combination is improper as it would be
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. (Br. 14.) This argument is not
persuasive, because the “test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Instead, the relevant issue is
“what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”
In reNievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Moreover, Feldkhun is not
limited to single-shot applications: “Some embodiments may also enable
three-dimensional surface shape measurement in high-speed single-shot
events.” (Feldkhun 112 (emphasis added).)
Appellants further submit the Examiner’s rationale for combining the
reference is insufficient. (Id.) We are not persuaded the Examiner’s
articulation of why one of ordinary skill would arrive at the cited
combination is insufficient. (See Ans. 12—13.) As does the Specification,
Feldkhun and Bloom disclose similar systems that use an imaging system to
estimate the locations of points on an object in a three-dimensional scene by
illuminating the object sequentially with phase modulated patterns that are
ultimately integrated to obtain an estimate of the locations. Appellants do
6
Appeal 2017-003806
Application 14/032,415
not point to any evidence of record that the resulting combination would be
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Inti
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418—19 (2007)). The Examiner’s findings
are reasonable because the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings
of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” because the skilled
artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S.
at 420-21. We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the
principle that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative
independent claim 1. Claims 2—3 and 5—7 (not argued separately) fall with
claim 1 under the first-stated §103 rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Second and Third-stated rejections under §103
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1 over Feldkhun and Bloom. We also sustain
the second-stated obviousness rejection of claim 4 over Feldkhun, Bloom
and Ben-Moshe, and the third-stated obviousness rejection of claim 9 over
Feldkhun, Bloom and Rodrigue, which rejections are not argued separately
with particularity. (Br. 14—15.) Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal 2017-003806
Application 14/032,415
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7 and 9.
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). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8