United Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2021

2020000062 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2021)

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.
14/522,793 10/24/2014 Christopher R. Brdar PA24399AA;
67097-2702PUS1
5367
54549 7590 05/20/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
NOH, JAE NAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2021 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER R. BRDAR, PATRICK HINCKLEY,
BRIAN LONDON, LARRY R. BREEN, ANITA REBARCHAK,
ALAN MATTHEW FINN, CHELSEA BARR, ROGER NEAMA,
and MICHAEL LI
___________

Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 5–16, 19, and 20. Final Act. 2.2 Claims 2–4, 17,

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Raytheon Technologies
Corporation, formerly United Technologies Corporation. See Miscellaneous
Letter (filed April 23, 2020). However, the U.S. Government has certain
rights in the claimed invention. Spec. ¶ 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
March 14, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 11, 2019);
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 20, 2018), the
Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed December 5, 2018), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 11, 2019); and the Specification
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

2

and 18 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 8–9 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed methods and systems relate to “calculating an amount of
visible damage on a component includ[ing] capturing an image of the
component, identifying an area of visible damage, calculating a size of the
area, and communicating the size of visible damage to a storage device.”
Spec. ¶ 10.
The Specification’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Figure 1 depicts turbine component 20 comprising airfoil 22. Id. ¶ 39.
Airfoil 22 is coated with protective coating 25, but areas 24 of protective
coating 25 may be damaged. Id.

(“Spec.,” filed October 24, 2014). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s
findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these
documents.
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

3

The Specification’s Figures 2A–2C are reproduced below.

Figures 2A–2C depict image capturing tool 30 including display 31 and
camera 36. Id. ¶¶ 40–41. Tool 30 captures image 32 of airfoil 22, including
image 34 of damaged area 24. Id. Tool 30 also may include one or more
laser pointers 38 to project laser points on airfoil 22 at the time of the
capture of image 32. Id. ¶ 42. Further, wireframe 40 may be included on
display 31 to align image 32. Id. ¶ 43.
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

4

The Specification’s Figures 3B and 3C are reproduced below.

Figures 3B and 3C depict damaged area image 34 within undamaged area
image 35. Id. ¶¶ 44–45. Software may be used to generate contour 78
mapping image 34 and to calculate the area of image 34. Id. ¶¶ 45–47.
As noted above, claims 1, 5–16, 19, and 20 are pending. Claims 1 and
16 are independent. Appeal Br. 8 (claim 1), 9 (claim 16) (Claims App.).
Claims 53–15 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and claims 19 and
20 depend directly from claim 16. Id. at 8–10.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
1. A method of calculating an amount of visible damage
on a component comprising:
capturing an image of the component using an image
capturing tool including a display and a camera;

3 Appellant cancels claims 2–4, but does not alter the dependency of
claim 5, which depends from cancelled claim 4. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims
App.). When prosecution resumes, Appellant should correct the dependency
of claim 5.
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

5

identifying an area of visible damage;
calculating a size of the area;
communicating said size of visible damage to a storage
device, wherein communicating said size of visible damage to a
storage device is performed by a one of a hardwired and wireless
connection between an image capture tool and said storage
device; and
wherein lasers assist in providing a scale to the captured
image, wherein projected laser points from the laser are part of
the captured image of the component, and are utilized to
calculate the size of the visible damage on the captured image.
Id. at 8 (emphases added). Independent claim 16 recites limitations
corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id. at 9.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name4 Reference Published Filed
Chang US 2011/0075159 A1 Mar. 31, 2011 Sept. 28, 2010
Rivas US 2014/0267698 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Mar. 13, 2014
Bancalari US 2015/0338353 A1 Nov. 26, 2015 July 20, 20155
The Examiner rejects (1) claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10–16, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Chang and Bancalari (Final Act. 6–18) and
(2) claims 7, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Chang,
Bancalari, and Rivas (id. at 19–20).

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
5 Bancalari claims priority from applications filed prior to November 19,
2013. Bancalari (60), (63); see Spec. ¶ 1. Appellant does not challenge
Bancalari’s status as prior art.
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

6

We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claims 1, 9, 10, and 16; so do we. See Appeal Br. 4–7; Ans.
17–21. Arguments not made are forfeited.6 Unless otherwise indicated, we
adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action and the Answer as
our own and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address
the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness over Chang and Bancalari
1. Independent Claims 1 and 16
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claims 1 and 16 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Chang and Bancalari. Final Act. 7–
10, 15–18. In particular, the Examiner finds Chang teaches or suggests the
majority of the limitations, as recited in claims 1 and 16. Id. at 7–8, 15–18.
However, the Examiner finds Chang does not teach or suggest “identifying
an area of visible damage” and Chang alone does not teach or suggest
“lasers assist in providing a scale to the captured image, wherein projected
laser points from the laser are part of the captured image of the component,

6 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“We interpret the Patent Office to be arguing that Google’s failure to raise
its lexicography arguments, inadvertent or not, compels a finding of
forfeiture.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018) (“Except as provided for in
§§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the
appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal.”).
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

7

and are utilized to calculate the size of the visible damage on the captured
image.” Id. at 8–10. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Bancalari teaches or
suggests “identifying an area of visible damage” (id. at 9–10 (citing
Bancalari ¶¶ 6, 25)) and Chang and Bancalari together teach or suggest
“lasers assist in providing a scale to the captured image, wherein projected
laser points from the laser are part of the captured image of the component,
and are utilized to calculate the size of the visible damage on the captured
image” (id. at 8–9 (citing Chang ¶ 38; Bancalari ¶ 257)). Further, the
Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had
reason to combine the teachings of Chang and Bancalari to achieve the
methods of claim 1 and the systems of claim 16. Id. at 10, 18.
Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show that Chang and
Bancalari teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 16 for
three reasons. Appeal Br. 4–7; see Reply Br. 1–2. On this record, Appellant
does not persuade us the Examiner errs in the findings regarding Chang’s
and Bancalari’s teachings.
First, Appellant contends the Examiner errs in relying on Bancalari to
teach or suggest, “identifying an area of visible damage.” Appeal Br. 4–5;
see Reply Br. 1. In particular, Appellant asserts:
The examiner has asserted that one would have because “Chang
teaches calculating a size of an area and Bancalari teaches
inspection of turbine engines or generators”.
. . . .

7 See Ans. 21 (noting a typographical error in citing to Bancalari ¶ 6, rather
than ¶ 25).
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

8

In response to the above, the examiner contends that the
combination would have been obvious “for the benefit of
determining the size of the damage in the inspection system of
Bancalari”. With respect, the examiner has not established why
or how determining the size of the damage would have been
beneficial within the context of Bancalari, or what teaching in
either of the cited references would awaken one of skill in the art
to that benefit. As a point of fact, Bancalari only cares about the
binary question of whether damage exists or not. There is
nothing within the disclosure of Bancalari that would lead one of
skill in the art to conclude that there would be a benefit to
determining the size of the damaged area.
Appeal Br. 4–5; see Reply Br. 1 (“In other words, the examiner is
interpreting the component of the references as the ‘damaged area’ and the
engine of the references as the ‘component’.”).
The Examiner finds, however, “[i]t is plainly clear that one of
ordinary skilled in the art would have known that rather than the entire
turbine/engine being subject to the damage in the damage/maintenance
inspection system of Bancalari, usually it will be portions of the
turbine/engine that may be damaged.” Ans. 18 (citing Bancalari ¶ 25); see
also Bancalari ¶ 4 (“More particularly, the invention relates to video/camera
inspection systems having self-supporting and shape-retaining elongate
deformable deployment tethers and a camera head coupled to the
deployment tether distal end, for capturing images of internal areas of
interest within power generation equipment.” (emphasis added)). “[I]t is
proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Because Bancalari teaches inspection of power generating equipment, we
are persuaded the Examiner correctly finds that a person of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

9

the relevant art would have understood that Bancalari’s inspection scope
distinguishes between damaged and undamaged areas. Ans. 16, 19–20;
Adv. Act. 2; contra Appeal Br. 5–6.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by this first reason.
Second, Appellant contends the Examiner errs in finding a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the
teachings of Chang and Bancalari “to calculate the size of damage rather
than the size of an entire component.” Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. In
particular, Appellant contends Chang discloses measuring the size of an
object, rather than of a portion of an object. Appeal Br. 4 (“Rather, Chang
seeks to measure the entirety of the size or dimensions of an object.”).
The Examiner responds, however,
Ban[c]alari [¶ 23] disclose[s] that video camera of the optical
inspection system may have the 3D white light laser dimensional
scanners incorporated therein so as to be concerned with the
dimension of the areas that need maintenance/repair. Still
furthermore, the Bancalari [¶ 8] states that it is also desirable to
gather multiple types of visual inspection data, including
dimensional and/or surface profile data. Such is understood to
be dimensional data of the damage/maintenance area, which is
precisely the purpose of the inspection system in Bancalari, i.e.
identifying and repairing/maintaining the damaged areas of the
turbine/engine).
Ans. 18 (italics added). Considering their teachings together, the Examiner
finds Chang and Bancalari teach or suggest, “determin[ing] the size of
portions of turbines/engines including the damage areas when utilizing the
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

10

imaging device of Chang to determine the sizes of objects that are hard to
reach or dangerous condition.” Ans. 19 (citing Chang ¶¶ 5,8 39).
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of the applied
references, but Appellant challenges the references individually. Adv.
Act. 2 (“It is the combined teaching that obviates the claimed invention and
not the individual references themselves.”). Appellant cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually when the Examiner
bases the obviousness finding on the references’ combined teachings. See In
re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by this second reason.
Third, as discussed below, Appellant amended independent claims 1
and 16 to include limitations of dependent claims 4 and 17, respectively.
Amendment (filed June 21, 2018) (“Amdt.”), at 2, 4. Appellant contends,
“[w]hile Chang, et al. might utilize lasers to identify a distance to a
component from an imaging device, laser points are not utilized by Chang to
help calculate an area on the component in any capacity.” Appeal Br. 6. We
disagree with Appellant.
Claim 1 recites “lasers to assist in providing a scale to the captured
image,” and are “utilized to calculate the size of said visible damage on said

8 Chang discloses, “in a steel rolling mill, the roll closure (the gap between
two rolls) is a critical parameter relating to the quality of the finished
products.” Chang ¶ 5. Thus, Chang discloses measuring dimensions of less
than the entire object. See also id. ¶ 51 (“The user can then select
boundaries 34 and 36, and assign the ‘parallelism requirement’ between the
two boundaries for the computing unit 10 to further process the image.”).
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

11

captured image.” Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.) (emphases added). Claim 16
recites corresponding limitations. Id. at 9. The Examiner finds:
Given that Chang discloses that the calibration (using
conventional components such as laser spot) occurs at the same
time as when the image is taken ([¶ 38]), the laser spot is
considered to be “part of the captured image” and furthermore
the calibration (determining the size of the pixels of the image)
is used for scaling of the image size and physical size (area) of
the object, thus the laser spot used for calibration effectively
assists in calculating the area.
Ans. 20 (emphasis added).
In particular, Chang’s Figure 3 depicts laser spot source 32 projecting
spot 52 on the surface of object 60, which is imaged by imaging system 20.
See Chang ¶¶ 37–38. Thus, laser spot 52 is part of the captured image, as
recited in claims 1 and 16. See also id. ¶ 60 (“[T]he laser spot source 32 is
configured to project its laser beam in the field of view of the imaging
system.”). Further, we understand Chang to envision analysis of one or
more laser spots. See id. ¶ 37 (“While a single apparatus 8 is primarily
useful for determining a dimension of object 60, if multiple apparatuses are
synchronized to take measurements from different perspectives of the object,
the resulting plurality of measurements can be used to determine features of
the object,”); see also id. ¶¶ 60–64 (discussing processing known parameters
L and α).
Chang discloses:
To facilitate this calibration, parameter identifier 30 is used to
detect necessary parameters, such as the working distance (best
shown in FIG. 3) between imaging lens 24 and object 60 by way
of a parameter detecting means 50. The parameter detecting
means 50 may comprise conventional components known in the
art, for example, may be structural lighting, such as laser spot,
ultrasonic wave, or other known technologies, and in accordance
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

12

with known approaches, such as optical triangulation,
interferometry, and/or sonic/ultrasonic response. Generally, the
information obtained by the imaging system 26 (e.g. image) and
parameter identifier 30 (e.g., system calibration parameters 31)
are processed by computing unit 10 to determine measurement
data 12 (e.g., the object’s dimension).
Id. ¶ 38 (emphases added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Chang
also teaches or suggests use of laser spots in calibration and optical
triangulation to determine an object’s or a portion of an object’s size, i.e.,
“an object’s dimension.” See Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 20.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by this third reason.
On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting
claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Chang and Bancalari, and
we sustain that rejection. Further, Appellant does not challenge the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 16, separately, or of dependent
claims 5, 6, 8, 11–15, 19, separately from its challenge to their base claims.
Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of these dependent claims. See
Appeal Br. 5–6.
2. Dependent Claims 4, 10, and 17
The Examiner rejects claim 10 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Chang and Bancalari. Final Act. 11–12. Specifically, claim 10
recites, in the methods of claim 1, “lasers assist in providing a scale to the
captured image, wherein projected laser points from the lasers are part of the
captured image of the component, and are utilized to calculate the size of the
visible damage on the captured image.” Appeal Br. 8–9 (Claims App.).
Appellant challenges the rejection of claim 10. Appeal Br. 6–7.
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

13

Appellant also challenges the rejection of claims 4 and 17. Id. The
Examiner notes, however, that claims 4 and 17 are cancelled (Ans. 20; see
Appeal Br. 8–9 (Claims App.)), and the limitations of dependent claims 4
and 17 are incorporated into independent claims 1 and 16, respectively (see
Final Act. 2 (withdrawing rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 due to this
incorporation)). See Amdt. 5. Thus, Appellant’s contentions regarding
claims 4 and 17 are moot. See Appeal Br. 6–7.
Although the Examiner finds Chang and Bancalari together teach or
suggest the limitations of claim 10 (Final Act. 11–12; Ans. 20), we note that
the limitations of claim 10 are identical to the final limitations recited in
claim 1 (Appeal Br. 8–9 (Claims App.)). Consequently, because we sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 as obvious over Chang and Bancalari,
we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 10 over the
combined teachings of those same references; and we sustain the rejection of
claim 10.9
B. Obviousness over Chang, Bancalari, and Rivas
As noted above, the Examiner also rejects claims 7, 9, and 20 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Chang, Bancalari, and Rivas. Final
Act. 19–20; see Ans. 20–21. Claim 9 recites, in the methods of claim 1,
“said image capture tool includes a wireframe used to align the image

9 Because the limitations of dependent claim 10 are identical to limitations
recited in independent claim 1, from which claim 10 directly depends;
claim 10 does not “specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”
in claim 1. 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). When prosecution resumes, the Examiner
and Appellant should consider whether claim 10 is a proper dependent
claim.
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

14

capture tool with the component to be evaluated.” Appeal Br. 8 (Claims
App.). In particular, the Examiner finds Rivas discloses:
FIG. 2 is a user’s viewpoint representation of an embodiment of
the present invention as they relate to a Smartphone or tablet
computer where a wire frame outline has been called up in the
camera viewfinder such that a user can photograph objects,
products, furniture, etc. that correspond with the wire frame
outline and save the images for later manipulation and use in
populating or designing a cleared out room or design space.
Rivas ¶ 10 (emphasis added); see id. at Fig. 2 (depicting a wireframe
surrounding a piece of furniture within the captured image); see also id. ¶ 26
(“The angle of the wire frame can be adjusted and approximate or actual
dimensions of the wire frame or objects within the camera’s viewfinder can
be either manually entered or automatically generated by the disclosed
systems and methods.”); cf. Spec. ¶ 43 (“Thus, when initially capturing the
image 32, a user will align the wireframe 40 such that it meets with the
contours of the component 20 to be evaluated.”). Thus, the Examiner finds
Rivas teaches or suggests aligning a wireframe with a captured object in an
image, as recited in claim 9, as well as in claims 7 and 20; and a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine Rivas’s
teachings with those of Chang and Bancalari to achieve the methods and
systems of those claims. Final Act. 19–20.
Appellant contends,
claims 7, 9 and 20 all require a “wire frame” that allows one to
“align the image capture tool with the component to be
evaluated.” Chang, et al. does not utilize a wire frame. Rather,
the portion of Chang, et al. pointed to by the Examiner appears
to force the shape of the image to correspond to particular
rectangular coordinates. This is not what is required by the
claims, and the rejection is improper for this reason as well.
Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

15

Appeal Br. 7; see Reply Br. 3. Thus, Appellant contends the Examiner errs
in rejecting these claims.
The Examiner responds, “Rivas discloses ‘Wire frame’ element as
indicated in the 103 rejection.” Ans. 21; see Final Act. 6. We agree. As
noted above, Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the
references individually when the Examiner bases the obviousness finding on
the references’ combined teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller,
642 F.2d at 426. Consequently, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
rejecting claims 7, 9, and 20 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Chang, Bancalari, and Rivas; and we sustain that rejection.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1, 5–16, 19, and 20 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Chang and Bancalari, alone
or in combination with Rivas.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1, 5–16, 19, and 20 are not patentable.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 5–16, 19, and 20.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 8, 10–
16, 19
103 Chang, Bancalari 1, 5, 6, 8, 10–
16, 19

7, 9, 20 103 Chang, Bancalari,
Rivas
7, 9, 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–16, 19,
20

Appeal 2020-000062
Application 14/522,793

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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018).
AFFIRMED