Ex Parte Nygaard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2018

13901862 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 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.
13/901,862 05/24/2013 Michael G. Nygaard GINS0173PUS 3476
22045 7590 01/08/2018
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER KWAN, MATTHEW K
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2018 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 @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL G. NYGAARD
Appeal 2017-007087
Application 13/901,8621
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Technology
The application relates to triangulation-based, 3-D optical imaging of
outer peripheral surfaces. See Spec. 12.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is one of the Applicants,
GII Acquisition, LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-007087
Application 13/901,862
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitation at
issue emphasized:
1. A triangulation-based, 3-D method of imaging the outer
peripheral surface of a part to inspect surface parameters of the
part at an imaging station having a measurement axis, the part
having a length, a width, a part axis and an outer peripheral
surface which extends 360° around the part, the method
comprising:
supporting a part to be imaged at the imaging station so
that the part has a predetermined position and orientation for
imaging;
supporting a plurality of angularly-spaced, triangulation-
based, sensor heads at the imaging station, each of the sensor
heads being configured to generate focused lines of radiation and
to sense corresponding reflected lines of radiation;
moving the focused lines of radiation relative to the
supported part without relative rotational movement between the
part and the sensor heads; and
delivering the focused lines onto a plurality of exterior side
surfaces of the part during the relative motion to obtain
corresponding reflected lines of radiation;
the exterior side surfaces being angularly spaced about the
axis of the part at the imaging station;
the sensor heads simultaneously sensing their
corresponding reflected lines to obtain corresponding sets of 2-
D profile signals;
wherein the step of moving includes linearly moving the
sensor heads in unison along the length of the supported part to
obtain the corresponding sets of 2-D profile signals, each set of
profile signals representing a 3-D view of one of the exterior side
surfaces and the sets of 2-D profile signals representing a 360°
panoramic composite 3-D view of the outer peripheral surface of
the part.
2
Appeal 2017-007087
Application 13/901,862
References and Rejections
Claims 1—3, 5, 8, 11—13, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Nygaard
(US 2009/0103112 Al, published Apr. 23, 2009) and Erfling
(US 2007/0223009 Al, published Sept. 27, 2007. Ans. 2-9.
Claims 4, 9, 10, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combination of Nygaard, Erfling, and Agapiou
(US 2009/0279083 Al, published Nov. 12, 2009). Ans. 9-12.
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Nygaard, Erfling, and Liu
(US 2001/0021026 Al, published Sept. 13, 2001). Ans. 12-13.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 30, 2016), the Reply Brief
(filed April 5, 2017), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed March 27, 2017)
for the respective details.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Briefs that the Examiner has erred. We are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s contentions and concur with the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions as explained below. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions that claims 1—20 are unpatentable. Ans. 2—13.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, “Nygaard discloses . . . supporting an
angularly-spaced, triangulation-based, sensor head at the imaging
station . . . [but] does not explicitly disclose a plurality of sensor heads.”
Ans. 2-4 (citing Nygaard ^fl[ 49, 587 and Fig. 51). The Examiner finds
“Erfling teaches . . . supporting a plurality of angularly-spaced,
3
Appeal 2017-007087
Application 13/901,862
triangulation-based, sensor heads at the imaging station.” Id. 4 (citing
Erfling 171 (“sensors 9 can each be mounted on a robot arm which is three-
dimensionally movable . . . whereby a measurement can be performed from
any random location”)). The Examiner makes numerous additional findings
that Erfling discloses other features of claim 1. See id. 4—5 (citing, inter
alia, Erfling || 72, 73, 74, and 75). The Examiner concludes “[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by
Nygaard with the missing limitations as taught by Erfling to measure three-
dimensional part geometries with minimal effort and expense.” Id. 5 (citing
Erfling | 6 (“It is an object of this present invention to provide an apparatus
and a method for measuring structural parts that permit non-contact
measurement of three-dimensional geometries of structural parts with a
minimum of effort and expense.”)).
Appellant agues the Examiner errs as follows:
[T]he Examiner force fits the Nygaard publication with the
Erfling et al publication to make the obviousness rejection of
claim 1, even though their inspection methodologies are
incompatible. Specifically, the Erfling et al reference is not
concerned with imaging the outer peripheral surface of a part to
inspect surface parameters of the part where the part has an
outer peripheral surface which extends 360° around the part.
Erfling et al would be of no aid to a person of skill in the art in
imaging the outer peripheral surface which extends 360° around
the part where the part has a length, a width, a part axis and an
outer peripheral surface. That is, Erfling et al’s table-based
inspection apparatus, using a bridge moving horizontally across
the table, with an array of sensors mounted on the bridge, could
not be used to image 360° of the outer peripheral surface of a
threaded bolt or an ammunition cartridge.
4
Appeal 2017-007087
Application 13/901,862
In view of the differing principles of operation and constructions
of the Nygaard publication and the Erfling el al publication,
modifying the rotational inspection method of the Nygaard with
the translating, table-based inspection method of Erfling et al
would make Nygaard's method inoperative.
App. Br. 14—16 (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 2 (“a plurality of
angularly-spaced, triangulation-based, sensor heads ... is neither in
Nygaard nor Erfling”).
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s underlying
findings as to the teachings of the individual references. In particular,
Appellant does not even acknowledge, let alone persuasively rebut, the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Erfling, paragraphs 72—75 and Figure 9.
See generally App. Br. 9, 12—16; see also, e.g., Reply Br. 3—14 (arguing,
without mention of paragraph 72—79 and Figure 9).
Erfling discloses:
[0072] A further embodiment of the invention as shown in FIG.
9 includes four identical sensors 70, 71, 72, 73 arranged in
different orientations relative to a structural part 74 which is
movable along the shifting direction 6.
[0073] The sensors 70, 71, 72, 73 may be provided as area
sensors or line sensors.
[0074] As will be seen from FIG. 9, the sensors 70, 71, 72, 73
are each tilted with reference to a first centerline (x-centerline)
and a second centerline (y-centerline), with said x-centerline and
said y-centerline each extending through the gravity center of the
sensors 70, 71, 72, 73. The x-centerline and the y-centerline are
each positioned orthogonally to one another on the one hand and
to a z-axis extending perpendicularly to the support plane 5 on
the other hand.
[0075] The sensors 70, 71, 72, 73 are each oriented toward
different comer areas 75, 76, 77, 78 of the stmctural part 74 such
that detection of the entire surface of the structural part 74 is
ensured. . . .
5
Appeal 2017-007087
Application 13/901,862
Erfling || 72—75 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
includes a citation to each of the foregoing paragraphs. See Ans. 4—5.
Yet without acknowledging the Examiner’s findings with respect to
this portion of Erfling, Appellant argues, for instance: “The Examiner’s
statement that the image obtained in Erfling el al ‘extends 360° around the
part’ is plainly wrong. Only ‘one single surface’ of the part, i.e., the exposed
surface of the part, is imaged; the underside of the part in contact with the
table is not imaged.” Reply Br. 9 (referring to Ans. 14). In accordance with
Figure 9 and the emphasized portions above, however, more than “one
single surface” of the part is imaged in Erfling. Indeed, from comer area 75
through comer areas 76, 78, and 77, returning to comer area 75 is 360-
around the part 74. Erfling, Fig. 9. Appellant’s argument is, therefore,
unpersuasive.
Appellant also argues error because “the underside of the part in
contact with the table is not imaged.” Reply Br. 9. We understand
Appellant to argue for a constmction of “an outer peripheral surface which
extends 360° around the part” such that the obscured portions of the part are
included. But in Appellant’s design, portions of the part also are obscured.
See, e.g., Spec. Tflf 76—77, Figs. 3 and 4 (describing and depicting the support
fixture obstmcting portions of the part such that these portions cannot be
imaged). Accordingly, to whatever extent Appellant argues for a different
constmction of “an outer peripheral surface which extends 360° around the
part,” we find such a constmction would be inconsistent with Appellant’s
own disclosure.
Further, we find unconvincing Appellant’s assertions that Nygaard
and Erfling have “incompatible” “inspection methodologies” and that
combining them “would make Nygaard’s method inoperative.” App. Br.
6
Appeal 2017-007087
Application 13/901,862
14—16. Appellant’s arguments are unconvincing because they are premised
on statements that, even if true, would not necessarily support the assertions.
See, e.g., id. (Erfling “is not concerned with imaging the outer peripheral
surface of a part. . .“would be of no aid to a person of skill in the art in
imaging the outer peripheral surface . . .and “could not be used to image
360° of the outer peripheral surface”). But in accordance with our
discussion above, Appellant’s arguments are built on a faulty premise.
Finally, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s numerous assertions that
the Examiner errs by relying on a misstatement of “KSR rationale D” and
MPEP § 2143. Reply Br. 5—8. Appellant operates from the faulty premise
that “a plurality of angularly-spaced, triangulation-based, sensor heads” was
not known in the art. The premise is faulty because it does not dispute what
one of ordinary skill in the art would have known from the combined
teachings of the references. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant argues that neither reference teaches
individually what the Examiner concludes is obvious in view of the
combined teachings. See App. Br. 14—16, Ans. 2—5.
Further, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s stated
reasoning one of ordinary skill in the art would have found Appellant’s
claimed invention obvious. Specifically, the Examiner concludes “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed
by Nygaard with the missing limitations as taught by Erfling to measure
three-dimensional part geometries with minimal effort and expense.” Ans. 5
(citing Erfling | 6 (“It is an object of this present invention to provide an
7
Appeal 2017-007087
Application 13/901,862
apparatus and a method for measuring structural parts that permit non-
contact measurement of three-dimensional geometries of structural parts
with a minimum of effort and expense.”)). Appellant argues “[tjhere is no
minimization of effort or expense is fitting together two imaging systems of
differing architecture and principles of operation” and “[t]he Examiner has
simply made a conclusory statement that does not meet the standard for
motivation to combine.” Reply Br. 10 (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[cjonclusory statements such as those here
provided do not fulfill the agency’s obligation to explain all material facts
relating to a motivation to combine”)).
Appellant’s argument that the “two imaging systems [are] of differing
architecture and principles of operation” is unpersuasive because Appellant
overlooks significant portions of Erfling. See, e.g., Fig. 9 and ]ff[ 72—75.
Further, the Examiner has not proposed a bodily combination but instead
relies on Erfling primarily for disclosing a plurality of angularly-spaced
sensors, which Erfling discloses. Ans. 4—5; Erfling Fig. 9. Appellant’s
argument that “[t]he Examiner has simply made a conclusory statement that
does not meet the standard for motivation to combine” overlooks the
Examiner’s citation to actual evidence. Reply Br. 10; Ans. 6 (citing Erfling
16).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 and of claim 11, argued on the same basis. See App. Br. 16. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, and 18, which Appellant
argues based on their dependencies from claim 1 or claim 11. See id. at 17—
18.
We note Appellant’s arguments as to the rejection of claims 2 and 12,
the rejection of claims 4, 9, 10, 19, and 20, and the rejection of claims 6, 7,
8
Appeal 2017-007087
Application 13/901,862
16, and 17. See id. at 16—21. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive
for the reasons stated by the Examiner, which Appellant does not
persuasively rebut. Ans. 17—19; see generally Reply Br.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the briefs. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose
not to are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9