Rolls-Royce Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2020

2019001610 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 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.
14/133,230 12/18/2013 Joseph Peter Henderkott 1106-050US01/RCA-10794 4543
28863 7590 05/27/2020
SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P. A.
1625 RADIO DRIVE
SUITE 100
WOODBURY, MN 55125
EXAMINER
BOYLAN, JAMES T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2020 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH PETER HENDERKOTT, PRAMOD KHANDELWAL,
DANNY RAY CARR, TIMOTHY PAUL FUESTING, and
JEFFREY F. RHODES
Appeal 2019-001610
Application 14/133,230
Technology Center 2400

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.

AHMED, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–7 and 9–20, which are all of the claims pending
in the application. 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 Rolls-Royce Corporation as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001610
Application 14/133,230

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “nondestructive testing of a
component,” for example, using flash thermography and flow thermography
techniques. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A method for nondestructive testing of a component,
comprising:
flashing the component using a flash lamp configured for
flash thermography;
collecting first image data regarding a response of the
component only to the flashing of the flash lamp using an
infrared camera from each perspective of a first plurality of
perspectives of the component, wherein each perspective is at a
different degree of at least one of relative rotation or translation
between the infrared camera and the component;
generating a first composite image of the component based
on the first image data;
flowing a fluid through the component for flow
thermography;
collecting second image data regarding a response of the
component only to the flowing of the fluid through the component
using the infrared camera from each perspective of a second
plurality of perspectives of the component, wherein each
perspective of the second plurality of perspectives is at a different
degree of at least one of relative rotation or translation between
the infrared camera and the component; and
generating a second composite image of the component
based on the second image data.

Appeal 2019-001610
Application 14/133,230

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Name Reference Date
Amano US 6,714,281 B1 Mar. 30, 2004
Prokoski US 7,822,263 B1 Oct. 26, 2010
Hooker US 2003/0179920 A1 Sept. 25, 2003
Cleveland US 2004/0080623 A1 Apr. 29, 2004
Rothenfusser US 2007/0288177 A1 Dec. 13, 2007
Chen US 2011/0102542 A1 May 5, 2011
Jahnke US 2013/0026365 A1 Jan. 31, 2013
Couse US 2013/0269436 A1 Oct. 17, 2013
Müller Müller, Real-time image processing and
fusion for a new high-speed dual-band
infrared camera, 6543 Proc. of SPIE, 1–8
2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Jahnke, Hooker, Chen, and Couse.
Final Act. 5.
Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Jahnke, Hooker, Chen, Couse, Rothenfusser.
Final Act. 22.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Jahnke, Hooker, Chen, Couse, Rothenfusser, and
Amano. Final Act. 29.
Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Jahnke, Hooker, Chen, Couse, and Müller.
Final Act. 30.
Appeal 2019-001610
Application 14/133,230

4
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Jahnke, Hooker, Chen, Couse, Müller, and Prokoski.
Final Act. 32.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Jahnke, Hooker, Chen, Couse, Müller, and
Cleveland. Final Act. 33–34.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Jahnke, Couse, and Müller. Final Act. 34–
35.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Jahnke, Hooker, Couse, and Müller. Final
Act. 38.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Jahnke, Couse, Müller, and Rothenfusser. Final Act.
42.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Jahnke, Couse, Müller, Hooker, and Chen.
Final Act. 43.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of cited
references teaches or suggests “collecting second image data regarding a
response of the component only to the flowing of the fluid through the
component,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites “collecting second image data regarding a
response of the component only to the flowing of the fluid through the
Appeal 2019-001610
Application 14/133,230

5
component.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Independent
claims 13 and 20, the only other independent claims, recite similar
limitations.2
The Examiner finds that the combination of Jahnke and Couse teaches
or suggests this limitation. Final Act. 6–11. According to the Examiner,
Jahnke discloses “excitation by means of hot air and recording of the
resultant heat flux by an infrared camera.” which teaches collecting image
data regarding a response of the component to the flowing of a fluid through
the component. Id. at 7 (citing Jahnke ¶ 3). The Examiner determines that
Jahnke does not teach using “only” a fluid flow for this step, but finds that
Couse teaches that aspect because it discloses “[a]ctive [t]hermography that
includes multiple stimulations using different excitation source, detecting the
thermal response, and determining the existence of defects based on the
detected thermal responses.” Id. at 11 (citing Couse ¶ 74). The Examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to modify the method disclosed by Jahnke
adding the teachings of Couse “to improve upon the defect detection process
by performing multi-modal active thermography testing of a component
(i.e., different stimulation sources) to determine different types of defects.”
Id. at 11.

2 Claim 13 recites a method including a step of “collecting second image
data regarding a response of the component only to the flowing
of the fluid through the internal passages,” and claim 20 recites a system
comprising an infrared camera configured to capture “second image data
from only the flow thermography from each perspective of a second plurality
of perspectives of the component.” Appeal Br. 36, 39 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-001610
Application 14/133,230

6
Appellant argues that none of the applied references teach or suggest
using only flow thermography in the second step, separate from using only
flash thermography in the first step. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends that
Couse merely teaches “non-destructive testing of interconnects using active
thermography that includes multiple stimulations of [a component] using
different excitation sources,” but that “Couse appears to be silent as to flow
thermography.” Id. According to Appellant, Couse does not teach or
suggest “that the multiple stimulations would be used individually such that
first image data would represent a response of the [component] to only a first
excitation source and second image data would represent a response of the
[component] to only a second excitation source.” Reply Br. 8 (some
emphasis added). Appellant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would not have a reason “to modify Jahnke’s testing program to
perform a technique including collecting second image data regarding a
response of the component only to the flowing of a fluid.” Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner counters that Appellant’s arguments are directed to
each of the references individually, and “one cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” Ans. 6 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
The Examiner also finds that Couse “provides rationale for providing two
separate simulation sources when capturing two sets of image data
respectively.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how the combination of Jahnke and Couse teaches or suggests
“collecting second image data regarding a response of the component only to
Appeal 2019-001610
Application 14/133,230

7
the flowing of the fluid through the component.” Although we agree with
the Examiner that it is improper to attack references individually where the
rejection is based on combinations of references, Appellant’s argument is
directed at the combination of Jahnke and Couse as it would have been
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Appeal Br. 12; Reply
Br. 8. The Examiner determines that Jahnke alone does not teach or suggest
collecting image data from a component’s responses exclusively to one
excitation source. Final Act. 10–11. But Couse does not teach or suggest
that aspect of the disputed limitation either. Couse discloses:
Further embodiments may include non-destructive testing of
interconnects using active thermography that includes multiple
stimulations of the interconnect using different excitation
sources, such as an optical radiation source and an inductive
excitation source, detecting the thermal response of the
interconnect from each of the stimulations by the multiple
excitation sources, and determining the existence of defects in
the interconnect based on the detected thermal responses. In one
example, a stimulation from an optical radiation source (e.g., a
flashlamp) may be used to detect a first defect or set of defects
(e.g., lateral cracks, protective coating defects, etc.) and
stimulation from an inductive excitation source may be used to
detect a second defect or set of defects (e.g., through cracks).
Couse ¶ 74 (emphasis added). The Examiner has not sufficiently established
that Couse’s disclosure of different excitation sources used to detect
different defects also teaches or suggests running those simulations
separately from each other, in the manner claimed by Appellant. Moreover,
Couse also does not teach or suggest using flow thermography for collecting
image data. Appeal Br. 12. We, therefore, agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has failed to explain sufficiently how the combination of Jahnke
and Couse teaches “collecting second image data regarding a response of the
Appeal 2019-001610
Application 14/133,230

8
component only to the flowing of the fluid through the component,” as
recited in claim 1. The Examiner also does not rely on Hooker and Chen to
teach the disputed claim limitation in support of the obviousness rejection
based on the four references. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of
independent claims 1, 13, and 20, and their dependent claims 2–7, 9–12, and
14–19.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1–7 and 9–20.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 20 103(a) Jahnke, Hooker, Chen,
Couse
1–3, 5, 20
4, 6 103(a) Jahnke, Hooker, Chen,
Couse, Rothenfusser
4, 6
7 103(a) Jahnke, Hooker, Chen,
Couse, Rothenfusser,
Amano
7
9, 11 103(a) Jahnke, Hooker, Chen,
Couse, Müller
9, 11
10 103(a) Jahnke, Hooker, Chen,
Couse, Müller,
Prokoski
10
12 103(a) Jahnke, Hooker, Chen,
Couse, Müller,
Cleveland
12
13, 14 103(a) Jahnke, Couse, Müller 13, 14
15, 16 103(a) Jahnke, Couse,
Müller, Hooker
15, 16
17 103(a) Jahnke, Couse,
Müller, Rothenfusser
17
18, 19 103(a) Jahnke, Couse,
Müller, Hooker, Chen
18, 19
Appeal 2019-001610
Application 14/133,230

9
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–20
REVERSED