Ex Parte YU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

13732702 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/732,702 01/02/2013 Liang-Pin YU
23552 7590 09/04/2018
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
l 1548.0054FP01 9108
EXAMINER
RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
USPT023552@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIANG-PIN YU and DON LIN
Appeal2018-000142
Application 13/732,702 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-16, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to a "three-dimensional measurement system."
Spec. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Test Research, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000142
Application 13/732,702
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A three-dimensional measurement system, comprising:
a measurement carrier for carrying a test object on a
measurement plane;
a first projection module for projecting a first patterned
structure light onto the test object along a first optical axis,
wherein the first optical axis forms a first incident angle relative
to the measurement plane;
a second projection module for projecting a second
patterned structure light onto the test object along a second
optical axis, wherein the second optical axis forms a second
incident angle relative to the measurement plane, wherein the
first incident angle has a first angular magnitude and the second
incident angle has a second angular magnitude, the second
angular magnitude being different from the first angular
magnitude, such that a second projective line period of the
second patterned structure light formed on the measurement
plane is different from a first projective line period of the first
patterned structure light formed on the measurement plane;
an image-capturing module for capturing a first patterned
image, which is formed after reflection of the first patterned
structure light from the test object, and a second patterned image,
which is formed after reflection of the second patterned structure
light from the test object; and
a control unit for controlling the first projection module
and the second projection module, and measuring a three-
dimensional shape of the test object according to the first
patterned image and the second patterned image.
2
Appeal2018-000142
Application 13/732,702
Rejection2
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Kim (US 2010/0091302 Al; Apr. 15, 2010) and Fisher (US 2009/
0190139 Al; July 30, 2009). Final Act. 3-9.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part,
wherein the first incident angle has a first angular magnitude and
the second incident angle has a second angular magnitude, the
second angular magnitude being different from the first angular
magnitude, such that a second projective line period of the
second patterned structure light formed on the measurement
plane is different from a first projective line period of the first
patterned structure light formed on the measurement plane.
The Examiner finds Kim discloses claim 1, except that "Kim does not
appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first incident angle has a first
angular magnitude and the second incident angle has a second angular
magnitude, the second angular magnitude being different from the first
angular magnitude." Final Act. 4. The Examiner cites Fisher for that which
is missing from Kim. Id. ( citing Fisher ,r,r 7, 9 Fig. 3).
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief filed Jan. 30,
2017 ("App. Br."), as well as the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed Sept. 1, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Examiner's
Answer mailed July 13, 2017 ("Ans."), and Appellants' Reply Brief filed
Sept. 13, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2018-000142
Application 13/732,702
Among other things, Fisher describes illuminating a test surface "from
different incident angles." Fisher ,r 7.
Appellants argue error because "the configuration of the light
source 104 and the light source 106 in Fisher fail to generate two
patterned structure light[s] with two different projective line periods.
The projective line periods of 112/114 are the same in Fisher." App. Br
17. Appellants also argue Fisher teaches away from "'a second projective
line period is different from a first projective line period'." Id. at 15.
Appellants' argument that Fisher does not disclose two different
projective time periods (id. at 17) is unpersuasive of error because the
Examiner cites Kim for that limitation (Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Kim ,r 13
(achieving different projective time periods with different light
wavelength))).
Appellants' argument that Fisher teaches away (App. Br. 15) is
unpersuasive of error. A reference may be said to teach away when a person
of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Even ifwe were to agree that Fischer
teaches only equal projective line periods, Appellants have not provided
sufficient persuasive argument or evidence to convince us that Fisher's
disclosure of only equal projective line periods would have discouraged or
led away from different projective line periods.
Appellants separately argue claim 11. App. Br. 19--20. We are
unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 5---6.
4
Appeal2018-000142
Application 13/732,702
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1 and 11, and of claims 2-10 and 12-16, which Appellants do not
separately argue with particularity. See App. Br. 22-23; 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-16.
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(±).
AFFIRMED
5