Ex Parte Saporetti

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

12519962 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

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.
12/519,962 06/18/2009 Claudio Saporetti F7755-00018 6758
8933 7590 07/27/2016
DUANE MORRIS LLP - Philadelphia
IP DEPARTMENT
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4196
EXAMINER
MCINNISH, KEVIN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2016 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 CLAUDIO SAPORETTI
____________________

Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1–26. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to image acquisition including at least two
cameras for acquiring images from at least one object passing on a
transporting plane and at least one lighting device associated with each of

1 The real party in interest is identified as Datalogic IP Tech S.r.l. of
Bologna, Italy, App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

2
the two cameras and suitable for lighting the object. Abstract. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the matter on appeal:
1. A system for image acquisition comprising at least two optical devices
for acquiring images and a plurality of lighting devices, each optical device
comprising a respective linear camera for acquiring images from at least one
object passing on a transporting plane and at least one respective lighting
device from the plurality of lighting devices associated with each camera for
lighting said object in regions of said object from which said images may be
acquired, wherein said cameras and respective lighting devices are grouped
into at least two groups with each group comprising at least one camera and
at least one respective lighting device and wherein said lighting devices light
said object with light pulses, said light pulses being synchronized so that light
generated by said at least one respective lighting device associated with a
camera of one of said at least two groups does not light said object when a
camera of another of said at least two groups acquires images, each camera
acquiring said images only when its respective at least one lighting device is
active.

App. Br. 17 (Claims App’x).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8 and 23–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Freyman (US 2006/0232825 A1; published Oct. 19,
2006) (“Freyman”) in view of Gauthier (US 6,122,065; issued Sept. 19,
2000) (“Gauthier”). Final Act. 3–6.
Claims 9–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freyman in view of Gauthier and further in view of
Murakami (US 2001/0004335 A1; published June 21, 2001) (“Murakami”).
Final Act. 6–8.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freyman in view of Gauthier and Murakami, and further
Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

3
in view of Olmstead (US 2006/0113386 A1; published June 1, 2006)
(“Olmstead”). Final Act. 8–9.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freyman in view of Gauthier and further in view of
Gladnick (US 2004/0223053 A1; published Nov. 11, 2004) (“Gladnick”).
Final Act. 9–10.
Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freyman in view of Gauthier and further in view of
Safaee-Rad (US 6,448,549 B1; issued Sept. 10, 2002) (“Safaee- Rad”).
Final Act. 10–11.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freyman in view of Gauthier and further in view of
Sepulveda et al. (US 2003/0231317 A1; published Dec. 18, 2003)
(“Sepulveda”). Final Act. 11.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freyman in view of Gauthier and further in view of Ritter
et al. (US 7,065,140 B1; issued June 20, 2006) (“Ritter”). Final Act. 12.
Claims 17 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freyman in view of Gauthier and further in view of Wurz
et al. (US 2002/0001091 A1; published Jan. 3, 2002) (“Wurz”). Final
Act. 12–13.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freyman in view of Gauthier and further in view of
Kriesel et al. (US 2005/0257748 A1; published Nov. 24, 2005) (“Kriesel”).
Final Act. 13–14.

Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

4
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Freyman and Gauthier teaches
the limitations of claim 1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would
incorporate the teaching of Gauthier into Freyman’s system to avoid light
interference and enabling some areas to overlap without causing undesirable
effect, while achieving predictable results. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 14–21.
Appellant contends Freyman’s system teaches multiple cameras and a
single light source consisting of a plurality of LEDs. App. Br. 7 (citing
¶¶ 15–17; Fig. 1). According to Appellant, the Examiner recognizes
Freyman does not disclose:
(i) That a respective lighting device from the plurality of lighting
devices is associated with each camera.
(ii) That cameras and respective lighting devices are grouped into
at least two groups, each group comprising at least one camera
and at least one respective lighting device.
(iii) That light pulses generated by the lighting devices are
synchronized so that the lighting device associated with a
camera of one of said at least two groups does not light the
object when a camera of another of the at least two groups
acquires images, each camera acquiring images only when its
respective at least one lighting device is active.
App. Br. 7–8.
Appellant argues Gauthier does not teach the disputed limitations
missing in Freyman and, therefore, the combination of Freyman and
Gauthier cannot render claim 1 obvious. App. Br. 8–9. According to
Appellant, “[a]lthough Gauthier discloses alternatingly switching of the
Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

5
LEDs 216 and 217, there is one single camera 228 for both LEDs 216, 217,
and that one single camera 228 is always on.” App. Br. 9. Appellant further
argues Gauthier’s alternately switching to avoid interference “is [the]
interference from the light of different wavelengths emitted by the LEDs 216
and 217 that is reflected back to the same camera 228 that is associated with
both LEDs 216, 217.” App. Br. 8–9 (citing Gauthier col. 11, ll. 43–46).
Appellant further argues the motivation to combine Freyman and
Gauthier presented by the Examiner is inadequate and the suggested
modification to Freyman would change the principle of operation of
Freyman. Id. at 10. Appellant also argues the Examiner’s reliance on
Haven for “the premise that the optimum arrangement of light sources and
cameras is considered to be in the ambit of one of skill in the art” is
misplaced. Id. at 10–11.
The Examiner interprets the claim 1 “‘grouping’ clause” (“at least two
groups”) as a mental step “that is inconsequential to the system of claim 1
and thus is not material to patentability.” Ans. 15. In particular, the
Examiner finds it is a floating step and not tied to any particular structure.
Id. Based on this interpretation, the Examiner applies a claim 1
interpretation that includes association between a lighting device and a
camera, but does not require grouping. Id.
Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
However, great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of the
Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d
1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

6
We disagree with the Examiner’s claim 1 interpretation as the
grouping is tied to the placement and operation of the cameras and lighting
devices. See also Reply Br. 1–3. In addition, the Examiner’s interpretation
is not consistent with the Specification:
For example, if the cameras l04a-104e are divided into two groups of
cameras, respectively A and B, wherein the view planes of the cameras
of each group do not interfere with each other, and a scanning time t is
established, the system can be programmed so that the cameras of any
group acquire a row during one half t/2 of the scanning time then turn
off their own lighting devices and leave the cameras of the other group
to acquire a row of image during the other half t/2 of the time.

Spec. 15, ll. 11–19; see also Figs. 6–8.
The Examiner finds Gauthier teaches a plurality of LEDs (216, 216′2
and 217, 217′) associated with respective cameras (228, 228′). Ans. 17
(citing Gauthier col. 11, ll. 29–46; Fig. 11). The Examiner finds the LEDs
are alternatively switched so as to avoid light interference in areas of overlap
and avoiding undesirable effects. Id. (citing Gauthier col. 1, ll. 43–45). The
Examiner finds the cameras are synchronized with the LEDs to capture
successive images in accordance with the respective LEDs. Id. (citing
Gauthier col. 11, l. 59–col. 12, l. 14).
The Examiner also finds
that fixing groups of cameras and lighting subsystems and their
respective timings is a matter of obviousness well within the scope of
one of ordinary skill in the art. For support of the Examiner’s rationale,
the Examiner points to Haven et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,462,813) which
discloses an inspection installation using a plurality of cameras and a

2 We note Gauthier’s Figure 11 and the accompanying description do not
consistently employ the use of the ′(prime) superscript to designate the
corresponding lower items. See, for example, Gauthier col. 11, l. 6–col. 7,
l. 14.
Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

7
plurality of light sources (Figure 8, Col. 8 lines 50-64). Haven further
discloses, [t]he optimum arrangement of the light sources and cameras
in any particular installation is considered to be within the ambit of
one of skill in the art. Thus, the system in Fig. 8 is simply one possible
arrangement out of many that could be designed. See Col. 9 lines 2-7.
In view of the above, there is no patentably distinct feature of claim 1
because the Applicant has not invented any of the features of the
system, but merely claimed a rearrangement of parts that is well within
the scope of obviousness for a skilled artisan. The object inspection
system, cameras, conveyor, and lighting systems are all well-known
components in the field.

Final Act. 2.

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and, instead, agree
with the above Examiner’s findings. In particular, Gauthier teaches upper
LEDs 216 and 217 associated with upper camera 228 and lower LEDs 216′
and 217′ associated with lower camera 228′. Alternate switching is done by
the LEDs regarding the associated camera, namely the lower LEDs are
alternatively switched in operation with the lower camera and the upper
LED’s are alternatively switched in operation with the upper camera.
However, Gauthier broadly teaches the use of alternate switching to avoid
interference, not simply to avoid interference due to the different
wavelengths as asserted by Appellant. Gauthier, col. 11, ll. 43–46.
Claim 1 recites “at least two groups” with each group comprising “at
least one camera” and “at least one lighting device” wherein
light generated by said at least one respective lighting device
associated with a camera of one of said at least two groups does
not light said object when a camera of another of said at least
two groups acquires images, each camera acquiring said images
only when its respective at least one lighting device is active.
Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

8
In Gauthier, the upper camera can be considered a first group camera along
with first group upper lighting and the lower camera can be considered a
second group camera along with second group lower lighting. Therefore, we
agree one of ordinary skill in the art would reduce interference such that the
light generated by said at least one respective lighting device [upper LEDs]
associated with a camera (upper camera) of one of said at least two groups
does not light said object when a camera (lower camera) of another of said at
least two groups acquires images and, because the cameras and LEDs are
synchronized, each camera (upper and lower) acquiring said images only
when its respective at least one lighting device is active. Ans. 17–18 (citing
Gauthier col. 11, ll. 29–46, l. 59—col. 12, l. 14; Fig. 11).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Gauthier’s
cameras 228 are always on because Gauthier teaches synchronizing the
cameras and light sources such that there is no need for the cameras to
always be on. See Gauthier col. 12, ll. 10–14. Further, Appellant’s
argument is conclusory. Mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory
statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An
assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney
argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a
prima facie case of obviousness.”); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699,
705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that there is no
motivation to incorporate the teachings of Gauthier into Freyman because
Freyman employs only one light device and, therefore, no interfering light
devices and the incorporation would change the principle of operation of
Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

9
Freyman by adding additional light sources. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that that one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate3 the
teaching of Gauthier into Freyman’s system to avoid light interference and
enabling some areas to overlap without causing undesirable effect, while
achieving predictable results. Appellant proffers unreasonably narrow
teachings of the references as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness . . . . [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.

KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of

3 While Haven, discussed supra, indicates the general skill of one of
ordinary skill in the art, we are relying on the broad teaching of Gauthier as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

10
a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21.
On this record, Appellant does not present sufficient evidence that the
combination of the cited references was “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, 550 U.S. at 418–19). Nor has Appellant
provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which our
reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.”
Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 13–26. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Appellant argues Freyman does not
teach “said cameras are arranged so that the fields of view of at least two of
said cameras intersect each other.” App. Br. 11–12 (citing Freyman Fig. 1);
see also Reply Br. 7–8. According to Appellant, Freyman does not discuss
interference and the single light source suggests fields of view do not
overlap to create interference. App. Br. 11. Appellant cites to the
Specification to argue “prior art systems (like Freyman) can simply arrange
their cameras such that the fields of view run parallel with one another and
do not overlap and/or are spaced from one another.” Id. at 11–12 (citing
Spec. 13, ll. 3–9). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and,
instead, agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding Figure 1 of Freyman:
Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

11
As can be seen, there are multiple camera elements (25) distributed
throughout the apparatus. The Examiner notes that Freyman Paragraph
[0016] discloses that the cameras in Figure 1 “are mounted such that
they generally have a field of view that captures the coded symbology
[sic] 21 to be scanned.” The Examiner more than reasonably inferred
that at least the top two cameras have overlapping (i.e. intersecting)
fields of view as they are positioned directly across from each other and
both oriented at angles that allow capture object passing on the
conveyor in illumination area 32. The Appellant’s arguments simply
defies logic with respect to Figure 1 because the cameras need to be
directed to the illumination area 32 to correspond to Freyman Paragraph
[0017] which discloses, “the illumination area 32 corresponds the
camera lens's view.”
Ans. 22–23.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Appellant argues Freyman does not
teach wherein one of said cameras carries out the functions of said control
device. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 8. According to Appellant,
[t]here is no disclosure in the art of record of a camera device
acting as a control device for each of the lighting devices, i.e.,
for the lighting device associated with it and the other lighting
devices associated with the other cameras. The Action points
only to Freyman paragraphs 28 and 32. But neither of these
paragraphs contains any disclosure of a camera acting as a
master controller for such lighting devices in the manner recited
in claim 6.

App. Br. 12.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and, instead, agree
with the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner finds “Freyman Paragraph
[0032] explicitly states that ‘[t]he camera head contains the CCD or CMOS
sensor board, timing and control circuitry, gate array (FPGA or ASIC)
which supports the LED strobe and camera exposure.”’ Ans. 23.
Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

12
Regarding dependent claims 9–12, which are related to the light
pulses, Appellant’s argue the Examiner’s reliance on Murakami is improper
because Murakami is non-analogous art. App. Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 9–10.
In particular, Appellant’s argue Murakami is directed to read and write
operation of synchronous double rate DRAM (DDR-SDRM) and this is
different from Appellant’s field of endeavor, image acquisition systems. Id.
at 13. Appellant also argues Murakami’s disclosure isn’t reasonably
pertinent to any problem associated with avoiding interference during image
capture by cameras disposed around a moving conveyor such that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not think to look to the teachings of the
internal read/write operations of a DDR-SDRM when considering the
problems faced by the present applicant. App. Br. 13–14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and, instead, agree
with the Examiner’s findings that Murakami would be pertinent to one of
ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner finds the subject matter involves
“programming knowledge and generation of a clock signal (i.e. the ‘periodic
reference signal’ of claim 6 from which claims 9-12 depend).” Ans. 24.
The Examiner also finds:
Freyman Paragraph [0032] again points out that the camera head
contains “timing and control circuitry[”], gate array (FPGA or ASIC)
which supports the LED strobe and camera exposure, and the LED
illumination board. Freyman Figures 2 and 4 illustrate similar logic
control signals to those that are disclosed in the Murakami reference.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
explore “timing and control circuitry” such as that disclosed in
Murakami.

Id.

Appeal 2014-008285
Application 12/519,962

13
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED