Ex Parte Sandusky

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 14, 2011

11477248 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2011)

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.
11/477,248 06/29/2006 John V. Sandusky SD7857S106103 7472
20567 7590 03/14/2011
SANDIA CORPORATION
P O BOX 5800
MS-0161
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87185-0161
EXAMINER
BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN V. SANDUSKY
____________

Appeal 2009-012547
Application 11/477,248
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, KEN B. BARRETT, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-012547
Application 11/477,248

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John V. Sandusky (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “a scannerless laser range
imaging apparatus having a receiver which utilizes loss modulation to
construct a three-dimensional (3-D) image of a target within a field of view
of the apparatus.” Spec. 1, ll. 10-12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A scannerless three-dimensional (3-D) imaging apparatus
to provide a 3-D image of a target within a field of view,
comprising:
a continuously-emitting light source which is amplitude
modulated in response to a first sinusoidal modulation signal at
a frequency f0 to provide a non-scanned illumination of the field
of view;
a loss modulator which is modulated at the same
frequency f0 in response to a second sinusoidal modulation
signal having a variable phase delay with respect to the first
sinusoidal modulation signal, with the loss modulator being
adapted to receive light backscattered from the target within the
field of view and to provide a loss in transmission through the
loss modulator which is range dependent and phase-delay
dependent; and
an array detector to detect the backscattered light
transmitted through the loss modulator and generate therefrom
an electrical output signal containing information wherefrom
the 3-D image of the target can be constructed.
Appeal 2009-012547
Application 11/477,248

3
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Scott US 4,935,616 Jun. 19, 1990
Peterson US 4,957,362 Sep. 18, 1990
Kollodge US 5,056,914 Oct. 15, 1991
Tamburino US 5,162,861 Nov. 10, 1992
Treado US 2001/0052979 A1 Dec. 20, 2001
Tennant US 6,448,572 B1 Sep. 10, 2002
Ray US 6,707,054 B2 Mar. 16, 2004
THE REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 12, 15, 16, and 19-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peterson and
Tamburino.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Peterson, Tamburino, and Scott.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Peterson, Tamburino, and Tennant.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Peterson, Tamburino, and Treado.
5. The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peterson, Tamburino, and Kollodge.
6. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peterson, Tamburino, and Ray.
Appeal 2009-012547
Application 11/477,248

4
ISSUES
Independent claims 1, 7, 15, and 19 call for: (1) a scannerless three-
dimensional (3-D) imaging apparatus to provide a 3-D image of a target
within a field of view comprising, (2) a continuously-emitting light source,
(3) a loss modulator (claims 1 and 7) or a plurality of loss modulators
(claims 15 and 19), and (4) an array detector. The Examiner relies on
Peterson for teaching elements (2) and (3), and relies on Tamburino for
teaching elements (1) and (4). Ans. 3-4. The Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to modify Peterson’s apparatus to include the
scannerless three-dimensional imaging apparatus and array detector of
Tamburino “because it would allow the system to obtain an image faster
than with [a] regular scanning apparatus.” Id.
Appellant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Peterson and Tamburino as
proposed by the Examiner to form Appellant’s invention. Br. 7-14.
The issue presented by this appeal is:
Would the proposed combined teachings of Peterson and Tamburino
have rendered obvious the claimed invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art?
ANALYSIS
As noted by Appellant, the method and system of Peterson is based on
phase detection of modulated received light 105, which is emitted from a
continuous-wave laser 10 and directed into scanning optics 30 which steer
the emitted light to sequentially illuminate each small area in a scene of
Appeal 2009-012547
Application 11/477,248

5
interest to provide a point-by-point range measurement. Br. 8; see also
Peterson, col. 3, ll. 37-46; fig. 1. Tamburino’s method and system is instead
based on a time of flight measurement and utilizes a pulsed laser 104 source
of light, which is directed through an optical system 110, which is not
scanned, illuminating instead the entire scene of interest. Br. 8; see also
Tamburino, col. 4, ll. 8-13, col. 5, ll. 12-21, col. 12, ll. 52-59; fig. 1.
If one were to modify the system of Peterson, as proposed by the
Examiner, to use the array detector and scannerless three-dimensional
imaging apparatus of Tamburino, one would also need to replace Peterson’s
continuously-emitting light source (laser 10) with Tamburino’s pulsed light
source (pulsed laser 104 operating on the order of 50 picoseconds in pulse
length). Br. 11, see also Tamburino, col. 5, ll. 12-21.2 Tamburino’s pulsed
laser is not a continuously-emitting light source. See Spec. 5, ll. 15-19
(defining a pulsed light source as a source which “emits light in pulses with
the duration of each light pulse being much smaller than one microsecond,”

2 We note that in the Response to Arguments portion of the Examiner’s
Answer, the Examiner proposes modifying “the scanning beam” of Peterson
to include “the non-scanned light source” of Tamburino. Ans. 6.
Tamburino’s non-scanned light source is a pulsed light source. Tamburino,
col. 5, ll. 12-21. The Examiner further explains that the proposed
modification would replace the continuous wave of Peterson, which is used
to measure the phase difference from the transmitted to the received signal
induced by time delay, with the time difference between the transmitted
pulse and the received pulse of Tamburino. Ans. 10 (emphasis added). As
such, it appears that the Examiner’s proposed modifications to Peterson
include replacing the continuously-emitting light source of Peterson with the
pulsed light source of Tamburino.
Appeal 2009-012547
Application 11/477,248

6
and distinguishing a pulsed light source from a continuously-emitting light
source, “which emits light over a time scale which is measured in units of
microseconds to seconds or longer”). Thus, the modified apparatus of
Peterson would not meet the claim limitation of a continuously-emitting
light source, and the proposed combination would not result in the apparatus
called for in independent claims 1, 7, 15, and 19. As such, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 15, and 19, and their dependent claims
3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 20, and 21, as being unpatentable over Peterson and
Tamburino.
The rejections of the remaining dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13,
14, 17, and 18 rely on the same underlying proposed combination of
Peterson and Tamburino, and thus suffer from the same deficiency as the
rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 15, and 19. As such, we also reverse
the remaining rejections based on the underlying combination of Peterson
and Tamburino.
CONCLUSION
One having ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to
combine the teachings of Peterson and Tamburino as proposed by the
Examiner to reach the claimed invention.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-21 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-012547
Application 11/477,248

7

nlk

SANDIA CORPORATION
P O BOX 5800
MS-0161
ALBUQUERQUE NM 87185-0161