Ex Parte Baker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2017

12811353 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2017)

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.
12/811,353 06/30/2010 Ian M. Baker 0074778-000026 5925
21839 7590 01/27/2017
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
GEROLEO, FRANCIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2017 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN M. BAKER
Appeal 2015-000563
Application 12/811,3531
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—6 and 8—11, all pending claims of the application. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed generally to “a device for 3D active
IR imaging.” Spec. 1:4. More specifically, Appellant’s invention is directed
to detecting radiation pulses reflected of an object and outputting signals to
an imaging device. Abstract. “Two image frames will be produced per
1 Appellant identifies Selex Galileo Limited as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-000563
Application 12/811,353
radiation pulse” and a 3D image is generated from the two image frames.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative with a disputed
limitation in italics:
1. A device for producing a 3D infrared image of a scene,
comprising:
a radiation source for emitting a radiation pulse toward the
scene; and
a detector that detects radiation reflected from the scene, the
detector having an integration time for converting photons of the
reflected radiation to electrons, and a readout time to scan pixels and
convert generated voltage signals to digital signals, the digital signals
corresponding to two frames generated per integration time, both
frames producing an image intensity dependent signal including a
series of pixels,
wherein the detector includes at least a first and a second
channel, each frame being processed in a respective one of the first
and second channels, and the second channel multiplies pixels of one
of the frames by a range factor dependent on a range of the scene
from the radiation source, such that noise sources are correlated out
of the scene thereby providing a 3D image of the scene.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—5 and 8—11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baker et al., A Low Noise, Laser-Gated Imaging System
for Long Range Target Identification, SPIE, Vol. 5406, pp. 133—144
(“Baker”) and Nakamura et al. (US 7,016,519 Bl; Mar. 21, 2006)
(“Nakamura”). Final Act. 2—3.
2
Appeal 2015-000563
Application 12/811,353
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baker, Nakamura, and Benzano (US 2006/0066877 Al;
Mar. 30, 2006). Final Act. 3.
ISSUE
Appellant’s arguments present the following issue on appeal: Has the
Examiner erred by finding the combination of Nakamura and Baker teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—5 and 8—10
The Examiner finds2 Baker discloses essentially the same device as
that of claim 1, including a radiation source to direct pulsed radiation toward
a scene a detector for detecting reflected pulses from the scene substantially
as claimed. Prior-Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner further finds “Baker differs
from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose the digital
signals corresponding to two frames as specified in claim 1 of the present
invention” (id. at 3) but finds Nakamura, in combination with Baker,
discloses these features (id. at 3 4). The Examiner further articulates a
reason for the proposed combination based on rational underpinnings. Id. at
4. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings relating to Baker in
2 The Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken incorporates the
findings of the preceding action mailed February 28, 2013 (hereinafter the
“Prior-Final Act.”). Final Act. 2. In the Prior-Final Act., the Examiner
explains the combination of Baker and Nakamura. Prior-Final Act. 2-4. In
the Final Action from which this appeal is taken, the Examiner merely
emphasizes teachings of Nakamura as they are relied upon in the rejection.
Final Act. 2
3
Appeal 2015-000563
Application 12/811,353
the proposed combination nor does Appellant dispute the Examiner’s
reasoning in combining Baker and Nakamura.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Nakamura, in the proposed
combination with Baker, discloses the disputed limitation in which the
recited first channel reads on signal processing section 7 of Nakamura’s
Figure 11 and the recited second channel reads on image pickup section 11
of Figure 10. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds Nakamura’s disclosure that
image pickup section 11 (the second channel) multiplies an input signal by
an image pickup gain value teaches or suggests the recited multiplying
pixels of a frame by a range factor. Id.
Appellant argues “there is no teaching or suggestion [from Nakamura]
of a detector that includes at least” the disputed limitation (App. Br. 5—6).
Appellant further argues, “In contrast, the Nakamura document discloses
that the pick-up gain is applied prior to the image signal being split.
Namely, the pick-up gain is applied at the gate 21 of the image pick-up
section 11, which is upstream of the image split circuit 22.” Id. at 6. We are
unpersuaded of Examiner error because claim 1 does not require any
particular timing of the multiplication function performed by the recited
second channel. Thus, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability). The Examiner finds, and we agree, “application of the pick­
up gain prior to the image being split is irrelevant.” Ans. 8.
Appellant further argues the Examiner’s Answer presents a new
interpretation of the recited first and second channels as reading on sections
4
Appeal 2015-000563
Application 12/811,353
7 and 11 of Nakamura’s Figures 10 and 11. Reply Br. 1. Based on the
alleged new interpretation, Appellant further argues,
From the claim language, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that each frame is processed in a
respective one of the first and second channels. That is,
Appellant’s claims encompass a feature in which a frame that is
processed in the first channel is not also processed in the second
channel.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
the signal processed in the image pick-up section 11 is the same
signal, although split, that is processed in the signal processing
section 7.
Reply Br. 2.
Initially, we disagree that the Examiner has changed the interpretation
of the recited first and second channels and, thus, Appellant’s arguments in
the Reply Brief are not justified by any change in the Examiner’s position.
We need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a Reply Brief
unless good cause is shown—which is not the case here. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2). Regardless, we remain unpersuaded by Appellant’s new
argument. Although Appellant’s claim may encompass such an embodiment
in which each frame is processed by only one of the two channels, the claims
are not so limited. Specifically, the claims do not preclude an embodiment
in which each frame is processed, in some manner, within both the first and
second channels.
In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1 or claims 2—5 and 8—11 dependent
therefrom and not argued separately. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1—5 and 8—11.
5
Appeal 2015-000563
Application 12/811,353
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Appellant does not separately argue
the rejection of claim 6. Thus, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, we
sustain the rejection of claim 6.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6 and 8—11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6