Brian N. Slack et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

15056536 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2019)

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.
15/056,536 02/29/2016 Brian N. Slack 15-2063-US-NP 7566
63759 7590 09/30/2019
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 190809
DALLAS, TX 75219
EXAMINER
TUNG, KEE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN N. SLACK, THOMAS ALEXANDER BROWN,
JENNIFER DIANE MACKAY, GUY STOCKIE,
YANXIN EMILY WANG, and LORI LYNNE WOODBURY
____________

Appeal 2018-009208
Application 15/056,536
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1 and 3–20. Claim 2 is cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The Boeing Company (“Appellant”) is the applicant as provided in 37
C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-009208
Application 15/056,536
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention relates to “systems for
tracking non-conformances in manufactured objects, and specifically, to a
system for mapping and visualizing areas on the object containing multiple
non-conformances.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of mapping and visualizing non-
conformances on an object, comprising:
determining, using a detection apparatus, a location of
each of the non-conformances on the object;
generating an electronic record, by a processor, containing
spatial coordinates of the non-conformances within a 3-D
coordinate system, wherein generating the electronic record
comprises:
generating, automatically by the processor, a 3-D
electronic display of the object;
selecting, automatically by the processor, points on the
3-D electronic display respectively corresponding to the
locations of the non-conformances; and
converting, automatically by the processor, the points
selected on the 3-D electronic display into the spatial
coordinates within the 3-D coordinate system;
calculating boundaries, by the processor, of an area on the
object containing the non-conformances based on the spatial
coordinates contained in the electronic record; and
generating an electronic image of the object, including
displaying, on a display device, the boundaries of the area
containing the non-conformances to allow visualization of the
area containing the non-conformances.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–8, and 10–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Yuen (US 2015/0062123 A1; Mar. 5, 2015) and
Maresca (US 9,488,592 B1; Nov. 8, 2016). Final Act. 2–10.
Appeal 2018-009208
Application 15/056,536
3
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Yuen, Maresca, and Kitagawa (US 2011/0311097 A1; Dec. 22, 2011).
Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON YUEN AND MARESCA
Claims 1, 3–8, and 10–20
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in concluding that claims 1, 3–8, and 10–20 are unpatentable over
Yuen and Maresca.
Appellant contends that the combination of Yuen and Maresca fails to
teach or suggest “calculating boundaries, by the processor, of an area on the
object containing the non-conformances based on the spatial coordinates
contained in the electronic record,” as recited in claim 1. In particular,
Appellant asserts that Yuen’ user manually draws boundaries, so “while
Yuen certainly performs a calculation to draw a ‘boundary’, such calculation
is based in response to a human’s use of a stylus 50, and not based on spatial
coordinates of the nonconformance 55.” App. Br. 10. According to
Appellant, the recited calculating boundaries from an electronic record,
requires more than calculating boundaries using ‘essentially
anything electronic inside and/or on the user input device’, as
asserted by the Examiner. Rather, the claim specifies calculating
boundaries from an electronic record that includes, for example,
points in spatial coordinates within a 3-D coordinate system.
Clearly manually drawing boundaries, as taught by Yuen, does
not include such calculations as featured in the claims.
Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded of error. Yuen relates to a “method for adding
an annotation to a 3D graphics model in augmented reality.” Yuen ¶ 2.
More specifically, Yuen merges a real object, from an image or video, with a
Appeal 2018-009208
Application 15/056,536
4
3D model using designated alignment points. Yuen, Abstract. As the
Examiner points out, Yuen’s merged imaged is set along a coordinate
system, and, thus, Yuen teaches using a mapping coordinate system in order
to receive and render the bounded areas. Ans. 10–11; Yuen ¶ 37. Namely,
when the user enters a boundary with a pen sensor or other input device,
Yuen’s processor calculates the boundary based on the spatial coordinates,
i.e. calculates the location of the received input within the coordinate
system, to generate the depicted boundary lines. As such, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claimed invention as
unpatentable over Yuen and Maresca.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we affirm the rejection of
claims 1, 3–8, and 10–20 as unpatentable over Yuen and Maresca.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON YUEN, MARESCA, AND KITAGAWA
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, Appellant relies on the arguments presented
for claim 1. See App. Br. 17. For the reasons discussed above, we find
these arguments unpersuasive. As such, we also are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 as unpatentable over Yuen, Maresca,
and Kitagawa and affirm the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED