Melissa Ann. Seely et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 202014847913 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/847,913 09/08/2015 Melissa Ann Seely 281976 (17851-1123) 6756 45364 7590 03/02/2020 PATENT DOCKET DEPARTMENT (17851) ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 EXAMINER MESSMORE, JONATHAN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2020 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): uspatents@armstrongteasdale.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte MELISSA ANN SEELY and WILLIAM FORRESTER SEELY 1 _____________ Appeal 2019-000697 Application 14/847,913 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jurisdiction. Claims 1, 4–11, and 14–20, are pending, stand rejected, are appealed (Appeal Br. 1), and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicants” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies General Electric Company, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-000697 Application 14/847,913 2 RELATED APPEALS AND TRIALS Appellant declares there are no related appeals. Appeal Br. 1. INVENTION Summary of the Invention. The invention is directed to an “imaging and analysis system for a component of a rotary machine.” Abstract. Claims. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below with formatting added for clarity: 1. An imaging and analysis system for a component of a rotary machine, said system comprising: an image capture device operable to capture image data from at least one selected type of electromagnetic radiation that is at least one of reflected from and transmitted through the component; a mounting rig comprising a rotatable component mounting system and a datum coupled to said rotatable component mounting system, wherein the rotatable component mounting system is configured to rotate such that the component is successively presented in a plurality of preselected orientations relative to the image capture device, and the datum is correspondingly presented in each of a plurality of positions associated with the plurality of preselected orientations; an image processor configured to generate processed data from the captured image data at each of the plurality of preselected orientations, said processed data based in part on a known size of the datum and a known one of the plurality of positions of the datum in each of the captured images; and a control system configured to automatically identify a condition of the component by comparing the processed data to Appeal 2019-000697 Application 14/847,913 3 stored reference data, wherein the reference data is stored in a format that enables direct comparison to the processed data. REJECTIONS2 AT ISSUE3 References. Name Publication Number Date Grote US 2010/0141756 A1 June 10, 2010 Derrien US 2011/0298901 A1 Dec. 8, 2011 Husmann US 2013/0119256 A1 May 16, 2013 Pangrazio US 2016/0061591 A1 Mar. 3, 2016, filed Aug. 28, 2015 Smith US 2016/0309083 A1 Oct. 20, 2016, filed Apr. 17, 2015 Rejections. 1. Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pangrazio, Grote, and Smith. Final Act. 2–7. 2. Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pangrazio, Grote, Smith, and Derrien. Final Act. 7–8. 2 The Application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. 3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed June 8, 2018, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 2, 2018, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed October 31, 2017, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 6, 2018, and the Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 8, 2015. Appeal 2019-000697 Application 14/847,913 4 3. Claims 7–10 and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pangrazio, Grote, Smith, and Husmann. Final Act. 8–11. ANALYSIS Overview. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1, 4–11, and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CLAIMS 1, 4–11, AND 14–20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER PANGRAZIO, GROTE, AND SMITH, AND VARIOUS SECONDARY REFERENCES. Appellant argues all claims as a group in view of the limitations of Claim 1. See Appeal Br. 42. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 103 rejections on the basis of illustrative Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant contends the combination of Pangrazio, Grote, and Smith fails to teach each element of the claims and for the additional reason that the Record fails to suggest a motivation to combine the references. Appeal Br. 5. Rotating a rotatable component mounting system. Claim 1 recites, inter alia: a mounting rig comprising a rotatable component mounting system and a datum coupled to said rotatable component mounting system, wherein the rotatable component mounting system is configured to rotate such that the component is Appeal 2019-000697 Application 14/847,913 5 successively presented in a plurality of preselected orientations relative to the image capture device. The Examiner finds Pangrazio teaches a mounting rig comprising a rotatable component mounting system. Final Act. 3 (citing Pangrazio, ¶ 6). The Examiner further finds Pangrazio teaches wherein the rotatable component mounting system is configured to rotate such that the component is successively presented in a plurality of preselected orientations relative to the image capture device. Id. (citing Pangrazio, ¶ 8—explaining Pangrazio teaches a mechanism that moves the load past the time-of-flight devices at a fixed velocity and a specific orientation with respect to the time-of-flight devices). Appellant contends Pangrazio fails to teach the claimed “plurality of preselected locations.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues rather, Pangrazio teaches a dimensioning apparatus, including a camera, which has been pre- calibrated using a calibration fiducial marker (found by the Examiner to teach the claimed “datum,” Final Act. 3) placed at a plurality of random orientations within the calibration apparatus. Id. Appellant explains that after the apparatus is calibrated, a load to be calibrated is driven into the apparatus from any random direction. The load has a mast fiducial (found by the Examiner to teach the claimed “component,” Final Act. 3), identical to the calibration fiducial which allows the camera to dimension the load by comparison against calibration photographs. Id. 6–7. Appellant argues [b]ecause the alleged component of Pangrazio [mast fiducial] and the alleged datum [calibration fiducial] of Pangrazio are never in the view of the camera at the same time, it is indisputable that Pangrazio fails to describe the claim recitation “the component is successively presented in a plurality of preselected orientations relative to the image capture device, and the datum is correspondingly presented in each of a Appeal 2019-000697 Application 14/847,913 6 plurality of positions associated with the plurality of preselected orientations.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds Pangrazio discloses an embodiment wherein a load is moved past a time-of-flight device at a fixed velocity and which require “the loads to be in a specific orientation with respect to the time-of- flight device.” Ans. 14–15 (citing Pangrazio, ¶ 8). Appellant makes two contentions with regard to this aspect of the Examiner’s Answer. First, Appellant contends the cited embodiment relates to the prior art and not to Pangrazio’s invention. Reply Br. 1 (citing Pangrazio, ¶ 8) (“[s]ome previous stationary dimensioning apparatus have employed time-of-flight devices”). Second, Appellant contends Pangrazio explicitly criticizes these prior art embodiments. Id. (citing Pangrazio, ¶ 8, emphasis omitted) (“Some previously known dimensioning apparatuses have additionally required the various loads to be in a specific orientation with respect to the time-of-flight devices. These requirements have limited the effectiveness and usefulness of such known types of fixed dimensioning apparatuses. Improvements thus would be desirable.”). Appellant contends the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer fail to cite any incentive to combine the separate prior art system of paragraph 8 “with the numerous other portions of Pangrazio’s own system that were cited to reject other recitations of Appellant’s claims, much less any incentive to combine the system of paragraph [0008] with the Grote and Smith references.” Reply Br. 2. Moreover, Appellant argues Pangrazio expressly criticizes prior art systems that require presentation in a fixed orientation. Therefore, because the claimed invention also requires the component to be in a specific orientation, Pangrazio would ‘“deter any Appeal 2019-000697 Application 14/847,913 7 investigation into . . . a combination’ that results in Appellant’s claimed invention.” Id. 2–3 (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting U. S. v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52 (1966)). Appellant argues “[s]uch a teaching away confirms the nonobviousness of Appellant’s claims. Id. (quoting DePuy Spine, at 1326). As specifically disclosed by Pangrazio, any embodiment that would require “loads to be in a specific orientation with respect to the time-of-flight devices,” such as the claimed invention, would render Pangrazio unfit for its intended purpose. “Such a teaching away confirms the nonobviousness of Appellant’s claims. Reply Br. 2 (quoting DePuy Spine, at 1326). The concept of teaching away is based on the well-reasoned principle that when “prior art teaches away from combining certain known elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely to be nonobvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Independent Claim 11 contains commensurate recitations. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 4–11, and 14– 20. Appeal 2019-000697 Application 14/847,913 8 CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16 103 Pangrazio, Grote, Smith 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16 4, 14 103 Pangrazio, Grote, Smith, Derrien 4, 14 7–10, 17– 20 103 Pangrazio, Grote, Smith, Husmann 7–10, 17– 20 Overall Outcome 1, 4–11, 14–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation