FARO Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

14458488 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2020)

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.
14/458,488 08/13/2014 Chi Zhang FAO0574US2 5705
136267 7590 03/30/2020
CANTOR COLBURN LLP - FARO TECHNOLOGIES INC.
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
BRUMFIELD, SHANIKA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHI ZHANG
Appeal 2019-001491
Application 14/458,488
Technology Center 2400
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, PHILLIP A. BENNETT, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as FARO
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001491
Application 14/458,488

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to measuring three-dimensional coordinates of
a surface of an object using a triangulation scanner. Spec. ¶ 2. As explained
in Appellant’s Specification, a triangulation scanner “measures 3D
coordinates of a surface of an object to projecting a pattern of light onto the
surface, imaging the light pattern with a camera, and performing a
triangulation calculation to determine the 3D coordinates of points on the
surface.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for measuring three-dimensional (3D)
coordinates of a surface of an object, the method comprising:
providing a structured light scanner that includes a
processor, a projector, and a camera;
generating by the processor at a first time a first coded
projector pattern of light on a plane of patterned illumination, the
first coded projector pattern of light being confined to a window
in the plane, the window including a collection of subwindows
arranged in two dimensions on the plane with each subwindow
within the collection of subwindows having a subwindow pattern
of light different than and distinguishable from the subwindow
pattern of light of each adjacent subwindow;
imaging the first coded projector pattern of light using the
projector onto a first portion of the surface of the object to obtain
a first coded surface pattern of light on the first portion;
forming using the camera a first coded image that is an
image of the first coded surface pattern of light and generating in
response a first coded array, the first coded array being an array
of digital values;
sending the first coded array to the processor;
determining via the processor a correspondence between
each element of the first coded array and respective ones of the
subwindows;
Appeal 2019-001491
Application 14/458,488

3
determining via the processor in a first frame of reference
of the scanner first coded 3D coordinates, the first coded 3D
coordinates being 3D coordinates of points on the first portion,
the first coded 3D coordinates based at least in part on the first
coded projector pattern of light, the first coded array, the
correspondence, a length of a baseline distance between the
camera and the projector, a pose of the camera, and a pose of the
projector;
moving the scanner or the object to change the object from
a first pose to a second pose, the movement of the scanner or
object being based at least in part on the first coded 3D
coordinates, the first pose and the second pose of the object being
given in the first frame of reference;
generating via the processor at a second time a first
sequential projector pattern of light on the plane of patterned
illumination, the first sequential projector pattern of light being
a non-coded pattern;
imaging the first sequential projector pattern of light using
the projector onto a second portion of the surface of the object to
obtain a first sequential surface pattern of light on the second
portion;
forming using the camera a first sequential image that is
an image of the first sequential surface pattern of light and
generating in response a first sequential array, the first sequential
array being an array of digital values, wherein the scanner is held
in the second pose during the forming of the first sequential
image;
sending the first sequential array to the processor;
generating via the processor at a third time a second
sequential projector pattern of light on the plane of patterned
illumination, the second sequential projector pattern of light
being a non-coded pattern;
imaging the second sequential projector pattern of light
using the projector onto the second portion of the surface of the
object to obtain a second sequential surface pattern of light on
the second portion;
Appeal 2019-001491
Application 14/458,488

4
forming using the camera a second sequential image that
is an image of the second sequential surface pattern of light and
generating in response a second sequential array, the second
sequential array being an array of digital values, wherein the
scanner is held in the second pose during the forming of the
second sequential image;
sending the second sequential array to the processor;
determining via the processor in the first frame of
reference sequential 3D coordinates, the sequential 3D
coordinates being 3D coordinates of points on the second
portion, the sequential 3D coordinates based at least in part on
the first sequential projector pattern of light, the first sequential
array, the second sequential projector pattern of light, the second
sequential array, the length of the baseline, the camera pose, and
the projector pose; and
storing the sequential 3D coordinates.
Appeal Br. 15–17 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Li
Kruse
US 2006/0017720 A1
US 2012/0281087 A1
Jan. 26, 2006
Nov. 8, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7–10, 12, and 14–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kruse. Final Act. 4.
Claims 3–6, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kruse and Li. Final Act. 16.
Appeal 2019-001491
Application 14/458,488

5
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Kruse discloses “wherein the
scanner is held in the second pose during the forming of the first sequential
image” and “wherein the scanner is held in the second pose during the
forming of the second sequential position,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), the Examiner finds
Kruse teaches the disputed limitations, which require that “the scanner is
held in the second pose during the forming” first and second sequential
positions. Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner explains:
Under MPEP 2123, a reference may be relied upon for all
that it would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. At present, Kruse reasonably suggests movement of
the scanner or object to a second pose based on three-
dimensional coordinates determined from the first coded pattern.
Kruse teaches that the object is moved such that the scanner can
capture 3D coordinates from all directions of the object. See,
Kruse, e.g. par. 32: describing that the object is moved such that
the scanner is able to capture 3D coordinates from all directions
of the object. It is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that
in order to capture 3D coordinates from all directions of the
object, the system must necessarily know what portion of the
object was already scanned in order to capture 3D coordinates of
a different portion of the object. This reasonably suggests to one
of ordinary skill in the art that movement is based on previously
captured coded 3D coordinates.
Final Act. 3 (citing Kruse ¶ 32). In the Answer, the Examiner cites further
evidence in Kruse in support of the anticipation rejection. Ans. 4 (citing
Kruse ¶¶ 19–23). The Examiner further explains the additionally cited
passage of Kruse “teaches monitoring movement of the scanner during the
projection and acquisition of the measurement images [and] warning the
Appeal 2019-001491
Application 14/458,488

6
user if movement is above a threshold movement.” Ans. 4 (citing Kruse
¶ 21). The Examiner finds this description in Kruse “reasonably suggests to
one of ordinary skill in the art that the scanner is held in the same position
with respect to the object being measured during the projection of a
sequential pattern and the capturing of sequential images of that sequential
pattern.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds the disputed limitations
anticipated by Kruse because “[i]t is known to those of ordinary skill in the
art that only one side of an object may be measured at one time. In order to
measure the object from all sides, it is therefore inherently necessary to
move the scanner and/or object such that a different side of the object is
measured.” Ans. 5.
Appellant contends the Examiner has erred in several respects.2
Appeal Br. 9–13; Reply Br. 1–5. Appellant argues the Examiner has failed
to establish anticipation because the rejection improperly relies on an
unsupported finding of inherency and also because the Examiner’s findings
regarding what Kruse “reasonably suggests” are legally deficient to support
a finding of anticipation. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant further asserts error in
the Examiner’s “reliance on Kruse for ‘anticipating’ the claimed invention
[which] is predicated on Kruse ‘reasonably suggesting’ or ‘teaching’
elements of the claimed invention, as opposed to Kruse, in a single prior art
reference, clearly and unambiguously disclosing each and every element of
the claimed invention arranged as claimed.” Reply Br. 2. Additionally,
Appellant argues Kruse is substantively deficient because Kruse discloses
the use of a handheld scanner and is “unwavering in its disclosure that either

2 Although Appellant advances several arguments, we consider only those
necessary to reach our decision.
Appeal 2019-001491
Application 14/458,488

7
the object subject to scanning, or the handheld device performing the
scanning, is in a state of movement during the scanning process.” Reply
Br. 3.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. Anticipation is a test of strict
identity. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed.
Cir. 2002). That is, to meet the strict identity test for anticipation, all
elements must be disclosed in exactly the same way as they are arranged or
combined in the claim. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593
F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Examiner’s findings fail to meet this
exacting standard.
Kruse, cited by the Examiner as the anticipatory reference, “relates in
general to handheld devices such as phones (e.g., ‘smartphones’), and more
particularly to a smartphone having a screen that projects a structured light
pattern out towards an object through a lens and a camera that captures or
scans images of the object in three dimensions.” Kruse ¶ 2. Kruse’s
scanning device is generally depicted as a handheld smartphone with an
attached lens assembly. See, e.g., Fig. 1A. In rejecting claim 1, the
Examiner finds the limitations “wherein the scanner is held in the second
pose during the forming of the first sequential image” and “wherein the
scanner is held in the second pose during the forming of the second
sequential image” taught or suggested by Kruse. See, e.g., Final Act. 4
(“Kruse teaches . . .”); Ans. 4 (“[t]his reasonably suggests to one of ordinary
skill in the art that the scanner is held in the same position”). The Examiner
explains that “Kruse teaches that the object is moved such that the scanner
can capture 3D coordinates from all directions of the object.” Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-001491
Application 14/458,488

8
However, neither the explanation provided by the Examiner, nor the
portions of Kruse cited sufficiently show that Kruse identically discloses
“the scanner is held in the second pose during the format[ion] of” first and
second sequential images. Put simply, there is no disclosure that Kruse’s
device is ever held still during the scanning process. Instead, Kruse
discloses that either the handheld scanner or the object being scanned is in
movement during the scanning process and that “three-dimensional
coordinates captured during the movement are ‘painted’ onto a display as the
movement is made.” Kruse ¶ 32. We note the Examiner finds that because
Kruse describes warning of excessive vibration during the scanning process
(Kruse ¶ 21), it reasonably suggests the disputed limitations. However, a
reasonable suggestion is not enough to meet “strict identity” requirement of
anticipation. Moreover, the fact that Kruse warns of excessive movement
does not mean that Kruse’s device is intended to scan without any
movement at all. Rather, it simply means that too much movement is
undesirable—a predictable concern in the use of a handheld scanning device.
Finally, the Examiner’s finding that it is “inherently necessary to move the
scanner and/or object such that a different side of the object is measured”
(Ans. 5) is not sufficient to establish anticipation here. That an object is
measured from different locations does not establish that it is held still while
doing so. We agree with Appellant, therefore, that Kruse does not disclose
the disputed limitations, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).

Appeal 2019-001491
Application 14/458,488

9
Remaining Claims
Claims 2, 7–10, 12, and 14–22, rejected as anticipated by Kruse and
which depend from claim 1 stand together with claim 1 for the reasons
explained above. Claims 3–6, 11, and 13 also depend from claim 1 and are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kruse and Li. The
Examiner makes no finding with respect to Li that cures the deficiency in
Kruse discussed above. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 3–6, 11, and 13
is also not sustained.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7–10,
12, 14–22
102(a)(2) Kruse 1, 2, 7–10,
12, 14–22
3–6, 11, 13 103 Kruse, Li 3–6, 11, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–22

REVERSED