Ex Parte Wildmann et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2004

08899848 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is
not binding precedent of the Board
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DANIEL WILDMANN
and CHRISTA BUCHMANN
______________
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-16.
Representative claim 10 is reproduced below:
10. A method for following the common edge of sheet metal
blanks before welding the edges together and/or for inspecting
the edges or a weld seam formed at the edges after welding,
comprising:
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
2
projecting a plurality of lines of light across the edges;
capturing an image of the lines by means of a camera having
an adjustable exposure;
evaluating the image, including determining whether the
exposure of the camera needs modifying for the next image, and,
when the exposure is determined to need modifying,
transmitting a control signal to modify the camera exposure for
the next image.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Cline et al. (Cline) 4,525,858 June 25, 1985
Tsunefuji et al. (Tsunefuji) 4,529,289 July 16, 1985
Iwai 5,533,146 July 2, 1996
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In a
first stated rejection, the examiner relies upon Iwai in view of
Cline as to claims 1 and 6. To this combination, the examiner
adds appellants' admitted prior art as to claims 2-5, 7-9 and 15.
Finally, to the initial combination of references, the examiner
adds Tsunefuji as to claims 10-14 and 16.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
3
OPINION
Of the subject matter on appeal in claims 1-16, we sustain
only the rejection of claims 10-12 and 16 generally for the
reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer as embellished
upon here.
At the outset, we note that method independent claim 1 and
apparatus independent claim 6 are complementary method and
apparatus claims of substantially the same subject matter. For
purposes of appeal, the significant limitations to be considered
are the fact that a projector projects a plurality of lines of
light having different intensities across the edges claimed. In
corresponding respective method and apparatus independent claims
10 and 12, the subject matter that is the focus of the appeal is
that the camera has an adjustable exposure, whereas the projector
more broadly recites than in independent claims 1 and 6 a mere
projection of a plurality of lines of light across the edges; in
these claims there is no requirement that the plurality of lines
of light have different intensities across these edges as recited
in claims 1 and 6 on appeal. Similarly, corresponding method and
apparatus independent claims 13 and 14 on appeal are somewhat
like independent claims 1 and 6 on appeal in that the light
source has a controllable light intensity notwithstanding the
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
4
fact that the projection is merely of a plurality of lines with
no specific requirement that the projected lines of light have
different intensities.
In considering the first stated rejection of independent
claims 1 and 6 on appeal as being obvious within 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Iwai in view of Cline, we find ourselves in general
agreement with the positions set forth by appellants as to these
claims in the principal brief on appeal. Notwithstanding the
examiner's urging at pages 3, 4, and 7 of the answer that the
discussion of Figure 1 at column 2 of Iwai teaches projecting a
plurality of lines of light across the edges of the metal sheets
1a, 1b, we agree with appellants' views first expressed at the
top of page 8 of the principal brief that the slit beam emitter
5a of Iwai's Figure 1 projects only a single beam of light and
not a plurality of lines of light as indicated by the examiner.
There is simply shown and taught the projection of a single slit
beam of light 8 in Figure 1 at column 2. The examiner, however,
is correct in indicating at the bottom of page 3 of the answer
that Iwai does not project light of differing intensities from
the light source laser 5. As Iwai applies to the critical
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
5
limitations of independent claims 1 and 6 on appeal, Iwai alone
does not disclose a device that projects a plurality of lines of
light having different intensities.
Of interest here is Iwai's use of a collimator lens 6
associated with the slit beam emitter 5a in Iwai's Figure 1.
On the other hand, in Cline, the example 2 discussed beginning at
column 10, line 28 with respect to Figures 6 and 7 is significant
because it is indicated that object 92 in Figure 7 is illuminated
by a collimated light source 93. What is significant about Cline
is the initial revelation at column 1 that interferometers are
known in the art to project divided beams of light into two or
more parts and the additional teaching at column 2 that a branch
of interferometry of Moire contouring is known in the art where
an object is illuminated through a Ronchi grating consisting of
alternative opaque and transparent lines of equal width by a
collimated light source to produce an array of shadows on the
object. The discussion noted earlier at column 10 with respect
to Figures 6 and 7 relies upon this earlier teaching.
What is most significant from the noted teachings of example
2 at column 10 of Cline is that a collimated light source may in
fact be processed optically to provide a plurality of projected
lines of light. As noted by the examiner at page 7 of the
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
6
answer, the teachings of Cline are significant with respect
to the use of collimated light in Iwai since the resulting
combination yields an improved projection and evaluation
apparatus. It clearly would have been obvious to have combined
Cline with the teachings of Iwai because corresponding teachings
exist in the Abstract of Cline of the use of so-called fringe
patterns (derived in accordance with the paragraph bridging
columns 4 and 5 of Cline with respect to prior art inter-
ferometric and Moire patterns) because the abstract first reveals
that the devices of Cline may be used in testing, in surface
characterization and inspection applications, which teachings are
buttressed at column 1 of Cline and the examiner-noted teachings
at column 3, lines 25-30. The advantages of using the approaches
of Cline are the varying reflected light intensities from these
so-called fringe patterns may be processed to reveal significant
amounts of 2 and 3 dimensional information by the circuitry
associated with Figure 10 in Cline beyond that which is taught in
the single collimated beam approach of Iwai's inspection
apparatus. There are significant teachings as well beginning at
column 6 of Cline relative to edge detection which is the
particular feature discerned according to the teachings of Iwai.
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
7
It is thus apparent to us that the artisan would have
considered the teachings and suggestions of Iwai and Cline to be
properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103 as we have explained.
However, the resulting combination yields only light that is
projected along a plurality of lines, but not yielding a
projected plurality of lines of light having different
intensities as projected as required by independent claims 1 and
6 on appeal. Because the combination of Cline and Iwai does not
teach or suggest the projection of different intensities or
varying intensities of light, we must reverse the rejection of
these independent claims.
It is noted, however, that the resulting combination of Iwai
and Cline yields no more than what appellants have already
admitted to be in the prior art in the discussion bridging
specification pages 1 and 2 as filed. There it is indicated that
it was known in the art to project a line pattern of constant
intensity transversely across the edges. This state of the art
was also indicated at specification page 4, lines 22-24 where it
was indicated that it was known to project a number of lines of
light transversely across the edges. Appellants' disclosed and
claimed contribution in the art is properly reflected in
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
8
independent claims 1 and 6 on appeal of projecting a plurality of
lines of light of different intensities across the edges.
We also reverse the examiner's second stated rejection of
dependent claims 2-5, 7-9 and 15. If we were to agree with the
examiner's view that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
have combined appellants' admitted prior art with the teachings
and suggestions of Iwai and Cline as just outlined, we not only
would have affirmed the rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7-9
and 15 but also would have indicated the obviousness of the
subject matter of their parent independent claims 1 and 6 on
appeal.
The examiner's reliance upon the paragraph bridging
specification pages 6 and 7 on appeal is misplaced. To the
extent this discussion may be an accurate characterization of
what the state of the art was, particularly with respect to
identifying a known corporation that markets a device capable of
projecting a plurality of lines of light having different
intensities, we conclude that it would not have been obvious to
the artisan on the basis of the information provided us according
to the noted portion relied upon by the examiner coupled with the
examiner's reasoning to have considered such teachings and
suggestions as obvious to combine by the artisan within 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
9
§ 103 to the additional teachings and suggestions of Iwai and
Cline. On the basis of their teachings and suggestions alone,
there appears to us to have been no reason to have modified
the combination of Iwai and Cline resulting from them to use
plural lines of light having different light intensities since
the combined system would have apparently performed well to have
provided a satisfactory basis of determining the brightness of
the scattered or reflected radiation from the weld bead. The
paragraph bridging specification pages 6 and 7 does not
indicate any teachings or suggestions to us that would have
lead the artisan to have modified the combined teachings of
Iwai and Cline to have used instead a light source projecting a
plurality of lines of light having different light intensities.
We turn last to the third stated rejection of claims 10-14
and 16 as being obvious over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Iwai and Cline, further in view of Tsunefuji. The
rejection of independent claims 13 and 14 must be reversed for
two reasons. As noted earlier, the projector of these claims
must be capable of having controllable light intensity such that
the intensity is modified according to the evaluation of the
image of the lines. It is noted at page 9 of the answer that
the examiner relies upon Cline to teach this feature. In our
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
10
reversal of independent claims 1 and 6 on appeal, we noted that
this reference does not teach a projector having the capability
of projecting a plurality of lines of light having different
intensities. It is thus also apparent to us from our study of
Tsunefuji that it is also incapable of and does not teach a
projector having a controllable light intensity and then
modifying the intensity of the projector to control it. Thus,
the reference to Tsunefuji is not relied upon by the examiner to
provide the teachings and suggestions of the requirements of
claims 13 and 14 on appeal. As such, the rejection of these
claims must be reversed.
On the other hand, we sustain the rejection of claims 10-12
and 16. As noted earlier in this opinion, independent claims 10
and 12 do not require a plurality of lines of light from a
projector where the lines of light have different intensities,
only the mere projection of a plurality of lines of light across
the edges. By implication then from our study of the combined
teachings and suggestions of Iwai and Cline, this key feature of
independent claims 10 and 12 on appeal is met.
The examiner's limited reliance upon Tsunefuji's teachings
and suggestions is well-taken. The teachings and suggestions of
the background of the invention at columns 1 and 2 of Tsunefuji
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
11
indicate that it was known in the art to use spotwise and average
photometric techniques to control the exposure in accordance with
the average brightness of the object viewed. As relied upon by
the examiner in formulating this rejection, the teachings at
column 2, lines 39-48 of Tsunefuji indicate that cameras having
automatic exposure control were known in the art. Since the
brightness of an object was stated to be one of the exposure
factors originally discussed at the bottom of column 1 of
Tsunefuji, an automatic exposure control camera relying upon a
variation of the exposure period is indicated as a means to
control the level of exposure such as to make it constant over
variable brightness conditions. The artisan would have well
recognized that the exposure period is effected by the shutter
speed of the camera. Even though the specific teachings of
Tsunefuji relate to a film-type camera rather than a CCD type
camera of Iwai's element 10 in Figure 1, the generic or generally
known teachings about automatic exposure control relied upon by
the examiner and noted at columns 1 and 2 of Tsunefuji would have
been obvious to have been incorporated in the processing of the
image relative to the exposure times of the CCD camera 10 in
Iwai. Thus, we consider that it would have been obvious for the
artisan to have combined the teachings of Tsunefuji with those of
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
12
Iwai and Cline for the reasons just indicated. As such, the
subject matter of independent claims 10 and 12 would have been
unpatentable within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
It is noted that appellants' arguments with respect to this
rejection at pages 12-14 of the principal brief on appeal do not
argue the patentability of independent claims 10 and 12 on
appeal, only the subject matter of dependent claims 11 and 16.
Even though we recognize that Tsunefuji is silent with respect to
the teaching of the projection of a plurality of lines of light
across the edges of an object to be inspected, we have noted
earlier that this feature is taught in the combined teachings of
Iwai and Cline. Because the examiner-noted teachings at column 2
of Tsunefuji indicate that it was known in the art to have
automatic, adjustable exposure mechanisms in cameras, the feature
of controlling the shutter speed of the camera in dependent
claims 11 and 16 on appeal as recited in the alternative with
other features is clearly met according to the teachings relied
upon by the examiner as we noted in the previous paragraph.
We are likewise unpersuaded by appellants' arguments in the
paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14 of the principal brief on
appeal that there is not sufficient suggestion or motivation for
the combination of the three references. We do not agree with
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
1 We leave it to the examiner to pursue concerns under the
enablement portion of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, of the
total lack of any structural elements disclosed with which to
embody the control units 14, 15 in Figure 2 as well as the
evaluation units 16-18 in this figure.
13
appellants' observation that there is no discussion of the
problems related to reflectivity of the surface being
photographed in the combination. On the other hand, there is a
significant discussion related to brightness which is a measure
of reflectivity of the surface being photographed and, as
explained at columns 1 and 2, brightness is a factor in
determining exposure levels or exposure times according to
general photographic principles. Additionally, there is no
recognition or statement of reflectivity per se in the subject
matter recited in claims 10-12 and 16. Finally, if the
combination of Iwai and Cline taught a variable exposure camera,
the examiner would not have relied upon the additional teachings
in Tsunefuji to reject these claims on appeal.
In view of the foregoing, of claims 1-16 on appeal, we have
sustained the rejection only of claims 10-12 and 16, and reversed
the rejection of claims 1-9 and 13-15. As such, the decision of
the examiner is affirmed-in-part.1
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
14
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Kenneth W. Hairston ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Lee E. Barrett )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JDT/cam
Appeal No. 2003-0517
Application 08/899,848
15
McCormick, Paulding and Huber
City Place II
185 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103-4102