Zetec, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2020

14717631 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 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.
14/717,631 05/20/2015 Jeffrey Raymond Gueble 0080-1036 9529
142667 7590 06/18/2020
SNYDER, CLARK, LESCH & CHUNG, LLP
205 Van Buren Street
Suite 110
HERNDON, VA 20170
EXAMINER
ZHANG, HAIDONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2020 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):
docket@snyderllp.com
pto@snyderLLP.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY RAYMOND GUEBLE, DAVID SULLIVAN, and
JEVNE BRANDEN MICHEAU-CUNNINGHAM
Appeal 2019-004437
Application 14/717,631
Technology Center 2800
Before DEBRA L. DENNETT, LILAN REN, and
MERRELL C. CASHION JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, 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, 3, and 4. See Final Act. 3, 6. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Zetec, Inc. a division
of Roper Technologies, Inc.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004437
Application 14/717,631

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
“The invention is directed to sensor probes for eddy current
non-destructive testing.” Spec. 1:10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An eddy current probe for nondestructive testing of
tubular structures made of electrically conductive materials
comprising:
a plurality of eddy current drive coils;
a plurality of eddy current sensors;
a first multiplexer that receives eddy current signals from
said plurality of eddy current sensors;
an analog to digital converter that receives multiplexed
eddy current signals from said first multiplexer and converts said
multiplexed eddy current signals to a multiplexed eddy current
digital signal; and
a digital to analog converter that receives digital drive
signals and converts said digital drive signals to a plurality of
analog excitation signals for driving said plurality of drive coils
via a second multiplexer, wherein said plurality of analog
excitation signals are arranged in time slots, each time slot
having a configuration defined by a length, a plurality of
frequency components, and relative amplitude of each of the
plurality of frequency components.
Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 11) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Ammar
Crouch
Harada
Drummy
US 2007/0040615 A1
US 2007/0126422 A1
US 2010/0231210 A1
US 2012/0265491 A1
Feb. 22, 2007
June 7, 2007
Sept. 16, 2010
Oct. 18, 2012

Appeal 2019-004437
Application 14/717,631

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Harada and further in view of Drummy. Final Act. 3.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Harada in view of Drummy, and further in view of Crouch. Final Act. 6.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 2010 WL 889747, *4 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After having considered
the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions,
we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error, and we
affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final
Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claim 12
The Examiner finds that each of Harada and Drummy disclose an
eddy current probe having the recited structural components is known in the
art – in particular, Drummy which also describes both an analog to digital
converter and a digital to analog converter in a non-destructive eddy current
inspection instrument. Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 4, 6. Appellant does not dispute
these findings. See Appeal Br. 5–8.

2 Appellant does not separately argue claim 4 and claim 4 stands or falls
with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5–8; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2019-004437
Application 14/717,631

4
The Examiner finds that, given the structural identity, the prior art
digital-to-analog converter is capable of performing identical functions
including convert[ing] “digital drive signals to a plurality of analog
excitation signals” with the recited characteristics. Final Act. 3 (citing
Ammar as evidence that it is well-known in the art that a digital-to-analog
converter is a time-sampled system); Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that
Harada describes “a plurality of analog excitation signals” with the recited
characteristics and a skilled artisan would have combined Drummy’s
converters with Harada’s teaching to arrive at the apparatus recited in claim
1. Ans. 5–6 (citing, among others, Harada ¶¶ 79, 96, and Figs. 5, 6A–6B and
Drummy ¶ 62, and Figs. 3, 6).
Appellant does not address the portions of Harada and Drummy cited
by the Examiner in support of the rejection. See Appeal Br. 5–8. Appellant
instead argues that the Examiner reversibly erred because the cited portion
of Ammar does not teach a plurality of analog excitation signals with the
recited characteristics. Id. at 6.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for several reasons. First and
foremost, the argument does not address Harada and Drummy which serve
as basis for the rejection. See Appeal Br. 5–8. As Appellant acknowledges,
Ammar “is not cited as a reference in the actual claim rejection.” Id. at 6.
The Examiner instead refers to Ammar in the Final Rejection to respond to
Appellant’s argument. Final Act. 2–3 (explaining that that Ammar shows
that the prior art apparatus is capable of converting digital signals to analog
ones with the recited characteristics).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive also because it does not
structurally distinguish the apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus.
Appeal 2019-004437
Application 14/717,631

5
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed.
Cir. 1990). Appellant’s argument that “a digital to analog converter (DAC)
produces whatever output based on the digital input to the converter. The
output is not inherent, but a function of the digital signal sent to the
converter, typically by a processor” does not structurally distinguish the
recited apparatus. Appeal Br. 6. The argument is in fact consistent with the
Examiner’s finding that the prior art converter is capable of outputting the
recited analog signal – when the prior art converter is operated to receive the
corresponding input signal.
Lastly, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it does not
address the Examiner’s analysis and illustrations that a skilled artisan would
have arrived at claim 1 based on the combined teaching of Harada and
Drummy. See Ans. 6–7. For example, the Examiner illustrates first, second,
and third time slots for an analog signal applying Drummy Figure 6. Id. at 7.
The Examiner’s findings are supported by the record and Appellant’s
argument does not identify error therein. The rejection of claim 1 is
sustained.
Claim 3
Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claim 3. See
Appeal Br. 8 (arguing only that “Crouch does not remedy these deficiencies”
in Harada and Drummy). The rejection of claim 3 is sustained for the
reasons provided with regard to claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
More specifically,
Appeal 2019-004437
Application 14/717,631

6

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4 103 Harada, Drummy 1, 4
3 103 Harada, Drummy,
Crouch
3
Overall
Outcome:
1, 3, 4

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED