Ex Parte Vandenhoudt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

13985907 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
13/985,907 10/25/2013 Geert Vandenhoudt 0080849-000002 1075
21839 7590 09/01/2017
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
AHMED, JAMIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2886
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEERT VANDENHOUDT,
PATRICK BLANCKAERT, and
HANS THIELEMANS
Appeal 2017-001415
Application 13/985,9071
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—24.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nikon Metrology N. V.
(Appeal Brief 2).
Appeal 2017-001415
Application 13/985,907
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
(emphasis added):
1. A system for measuring a position of an object in a
measurement volume, comprising:
an optical angular measurement device, disposed with
static optics, configured for measurement of azimuth and
elevation angles of an object in the measurement volume with
respect to the optical angular measurement device;
a range measurement device, disposed with a static
component, configured for measurement of a range of the
object in the measurement volume; and
a processing device, configured to calculate a position of
the object from the range and the azimuth and elevation angles
of the object;
wherein said measurement volume is an intersection of a
measurement volume of the optical angular measurement
device and of a measurement volume of the range measurement
device; and
wherein the measurement volumes of the optical angular
measurement device and of the range measurement device are
fixed relative to each other.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
(a) claims 1—17 and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pettersen et al. (US 6,166,809 A, issued Dec. 26, 2000) (“Pettersen”) in
view of Gaillard (DE 196 03 267 Al, published July 31, 1997) (“Gaillard”);
and
(b) claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pettersen
in view of Gaillard and further in view of Kim (US 5,389,967 A, issued Feb.
14, 1995) (“Kim”).
2
Appeal 2017-001415
Application 13/985,907
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’
claims 1—24 are unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in
the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The §103 rejection over Pettersen and Gaillard
Claims 1—17 and 19—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pettersen in view of Gaillard. Appellants argue claims 1,
4—7, 9-17, and 19—24 as a group, claims 2 and 3 as a second group, and
claim 8 as a third group (Appeal Br. 7—12). We select claims 1,3, and 8 as
representative claims for these groups.
Claims L 4—7, 9-17, and 19-24
Appellants’ principal argument in the Appeal Brief regarding claim 1
is that the applied references do not disclose or suggest a system for
measuring a position of an object in a measurement volume “wherein the
measurement volumes of the optical angular measurement device and of the
range measurement device are fixed relative to each other,” as recited in
claim 1 (Appeal Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 1—5). Specifically, Appellants contend
the Examiner erred in finding Gaillard discloses that measurement volumes
of an optical angular measurement device and a range measurement device
are fixed relative to each other, as recited in claim 1, because Gaillard
discloses its distance measuring sensor 3 (i.e., range measurement device) is
3
Appeal 2017-001415
Application 13/985,907
mounted (Appeal Br. 8). Appellants argue the disclosure of mounting the
measuring sensor 3 does not mean the measurement volume of the
measuring sensor 3 is fixed relative to the measurement volume of the
camera 5 of Gaillard (id. ). Moreover, Appellants contend Gaillard discloses
its measuring sensor 3 is rotatable about axes 13, 15, which means the
measurement volume of the measuring sensor 3 is not fixed relative to that
of the camera 5, and both Pettersen and Gaillard demonstrate their devices
are not fixed because they scan objects (Appeal Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 2-4).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds that the
measuring sensor 3 of Gaillard is mounted by a means and therefore the
sensor 3 is fixed and thus fixed relative to the camera 5 (Ans. 4). Appellants
do not dispute that Gaillard discloses mounting the sensor 3, stating Gaillard
discloses the sensor 3 “is mounted by means not shown” but that the sensor
3 is rotatable about axes 13,15 (Appeal Br. 10). However, the language
“wherein the measurement volumes of the optical angular measurement
device and of the range measurement device are fixed relative to each other”
of claim 1 reasonably encompasses the mounted sensor 3 of Gaillard. By
mounting the sensor 3 via a means, Gaillard provides a sensor 3 with a
measurement volume that may be located at a fixed point relative to the
measurement volume of the camera 5. Even assuming arguendo that the
mounting could be slidable or rotatable (Reply Br. 2), Appellants admit such
a mounting could also be fixed (id. ). Given the limited number of
possibilities for mounting the sensor, all of which would be readily
appreciated by one of ordinary skill, the Examiner’s obviousness
determination was reasonable.
4
Appeal 2017-001415
Application 13/985,907
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that mounting the sensor 3 of
Gaillard does not provide measurement volumes that are fixed relative to
each other, as recited in claim l,2 Appellants’ Specification does not exclude
a sensor that can be driven about one or more axes (e.g., the sensor 3 of
Gaillard that can be rotated about axes 13, 15) but fixed at the time of
measurement. For example, page 9, lines 7—9 and 20-21, of Appellants’
Specification states that a range measurement device can be fixed for the
duration of a measurement. Page 12, lines 26—28 and 34—36, of the
Specification discloses a similar arrangement for the optical angular
measurement device. Page 13, lines 17—26, of the Specification also
discloses optical angular measurement and range measurement devices that
are static at least for the duration of a measurement.
Appellants cite page 13, lines 27—34, as support for the language
“wherein the measurement volumes of the optical angular measurement
device and of the range measurement device are fixed relative to each other”
(Appeal Br. 4). This passage describes an embodiment that is devoid of a
steerable mirror and receiver components. However, claim 1 is not limited
to such an embodiment. The language “wherein the measurement volumes
of the optical angular measurement device and of the range measurement
device are fixed relative to each other” encompasses arrangements in which
the measurement devices are fixed at the time of measurement, even for a
mere instant when a measurement is made by these devices.
Further, although the sensor 3 of Gaillard may be rotated about axes
13, 15, such as to track movement of an object, the object need not be
2 Claim 1 recites that the range measurement device is “disposed with a
static component.” This encompasses the mount disclosed by Gaillard.
5
Appeal 2017-001415
Application 13/985,907
moving or at least moving along directions x and z in Figure 1 of Gaillard
relative to the sensor 3. Thus, the sensor 3 need not rotate along axis 13 or
15 to track the object. When the sensor 3 takes a measurement in such a
situation, its measurement volume is fixed relative to that of the camera 5.
Appellants further assert the Examiner did not examine the language
of the claims because the Examiner finds the measurement volumes of
optical angular measurement device and the range measurement device of
the applied references are fixed relative to the overall system, not to each
other (Appeal Br. 7—8). This argument is unpersuasive because the
Examiner finds Gaillard discloses an optical angular measurement device
and a range measurement device with measurement volumes fixed relative
to each other (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants cite various references to demonstrate
that there are different types of mounts and argue the measuring sensor 3 of
Gaillard is rotatably mounted (Reply Br. 2^4). Appellants have not shown
good cause why these arguments could not have been presented in the
Appeal Brief. Therefore, we will not consider these arguments that were
newly raised in the Reply Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Nonetheless, even
if these arguments had been timely submitted, our analysis would have
remained the same. A preponderance of the evidence in the record supports
the Examiner’s rejection.
Claims 4—7, 9—17, and 19-24 have not been argued separately from
claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7—10).
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 4—7, 9-17,
and 19—24 over Pettersen & Gaillard.
6
Appeal 2017-001415
Application 13/985,907
Claims 2 and 3
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites, among other things,
that “the optical angular measurement device is configured for measurement
of the azimuth and elevation angle of a first target.” Claim 3 depends from
claim 2 and further recites “wherein the first target includes three targets.”
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “[t]he Examiner
alleged that light sources 22—24 correspond to the three targets included in
the first target” and that “the light source 21 of Pettersen does not include
three targets” because “the light sources 22—24 are independent light sources
from the light source 21” (Appeal Br. 11—12).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. First, with regard to the
recitations of claim 2, the Examiner cites a light source 21 on the touch tool
18 of Pettersen as a first target (Final Act. 5). In the rejection of claim 3, the
Examiner cites light sources 21, 22, and 24 (id.). Thus, the Examiner does
not cite light source 23 as one of three light sources.
Second, even if the Examiner did cite light source 23 (or any three of
light sources 21—25 of Pettersen), it would not have been a reversible error.
Claim 3 does not require that the first target recited in claim 2 consists of the
three targets, as stated by the Examiner at page 9 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Appellants do not respond to the Examiner’s Answer or otherwise identity a
reversible error in the Examiner’s findings (e.g., Ans. 9; Reply Br. 5).
Claim 3 encompasses a situation in which there are three of the first
target type (i.e., targets whose azimuth and elevation angle can be measured
by an optical measurement device, as recited in claim 2) (Ans. 9 (Examiner
construes claim 3 in light of Spec., e.g., Fig. 1)). Lights sources 21, 22, and
24 are all a part of the touch tool 18 of Pettersen, which discloses a camera 7
7
Appeal 2017-001415
Application 13/985,907
for registering positions of the light sources 21—25 of the touch tool 18 and
using an image to determine the position and orientation of the touch tool 18
(Pettersen 4:59—64). Therefore, the disclosure of Pettersen supports the
Examiner’s findings by disclosing the light sources 21—25 function the same
way and can be detected by camera 7 so their position and orientation can be
determined, like the first targets of claims 2 and 3.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we
sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 2 and 3 over Pettersen and Gaillard.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the optical
angular measurement device is arranged for measuring a divergence light by
using the static optics.”
Appellants assert “Pettersen does not disclose or suggest that a
divergence of light is measured” and instead “discloses that the lens unit 33
has standard spherical optics having a focal length substantially dictated by
required visual field,” which means “a fixed lens unit 33 having a known
divergence is used, not that a divergence of light is measured” (Appeal Br.
12).
The Examiner finds the camera 7 of Pettersen is arranged to measure a
divergence light by using static optics, citing the divergence of light depicted
in Figure 3 (Final Act. 7). The Examiner finds the lens 33 shown in Figure 3
of Pettersen creates a divergence of light that in turn creates an image from
point 35 to point 36 on its sensor 32, which measures the divergence of the
light (Ans. 10). The Examiner also cites Figure 5 of Pettersen as depicting
an arrangement in which the divergence of light is measured (id. at 10—11).
Appellants do not respond to the Examiner’s Answer or otherwise identify a
8
Appeal 2017-001415
Application 13/985,907
reversible error in the Examiner’s findings, which are reasonable in nature
(Reply Br. 5).
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we
sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 8 over Pettersen and Gaillard.
The § 103 rejection of claim 18 over Pettersen, Gaillard, and Kim
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pettersen in view of Gaillard and further in view of Kim. Appellants merely
reiterate the arguments set forth in support of the patentability of claim 1 and
contend Kim does not remedy the deficiencies of Pettersen and Gaillard.
Appeal Br. 11. For the reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in
the rejection of claim 1 that require curing by Kim.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we
sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 18 over Pettersen, Gaillard, and Kim.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24 are affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
9