Ex Parte DESJARDINS

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 11, 2018

13096529 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/096,529 04/28/2011 25545 7590 07/13/2018 GOUDREAU GAGE DUBUC 2000 MCGILL COLLEGE SUITE 2200 MONTREAL, QC H3A 3H3 CANADA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stephane DESJARDINS 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 773/10790.71 4748 EXAMINER SECHSER, JILL D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/13/2018 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): afovero@ggd.com Private.PAIR@ggd.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHANE DESJARDINS Appeal2017-011213 Application 13/096,529 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVINE. BRANCH, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-19, and 21-28, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Technology The application relates to "a multiple vision system ... for identifying and classifying three-dimensional objects," such as wood. Spec. ,r,r 2--4. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Equipements Comact Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-011213 Application 13/096,529 Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with white space added: 1. A system for detecting defects on a peripheral surface of a wood piece, comprising at least one conveyor unit conveying the wood piece; a combination of light sources and cameras; and a processing unit; wherein said light sources are combined to illuminate surfaces of said wood piece so as to generate contrast on the surfaces of the wood piece in the line of sight of said cameras as said cameras take, for each one of the top, bottom, first edge and second edge surfaces of the wood piece, at least two transversal two-dimensional surface images, each at a different angle; and said processing unit processes, for each one of the top, bottom, first edge and second edge surfaces, the at least two two- dimensional surface images to detect ones of: openings, checks, shake and splits. Rejections Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Berube et al. (US 7,684,030 B2; Mar. 23, 2010), Barker (US 2009/0095377 Al; Apr. 16, 2009), Baer et al. (US 2004/0184653 Al; Sept. 23, 2004), and Schafer et al. (US 2002/0043108 Al; Apr. 18, 2002). Final Act. 5-20. Claims 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Berube, Barker, Baer, Schafer, and Hubert et al. (US 7,227,165 B2; June 5, 2007). Final Act. 20-26. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Berube, Barker, Baer, Schafer, and Fahrenschon (US 2008/0316473 Al; Dec. 25, 2008). Final Act. 26-28. 2 Appeal2017-011213 Application 13/096,529 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in concluding claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Berube, Barker, Baer, and Schafer? ANALYSIS Appellant argues that "[ n Jone of the cited references teaches ... a detection method and system as ... recited in independent claims 1 and 19" because: Berube and Barker both describe triangulation methods, whereby the cameras follow[] displacements of laser beams hitting surfaces, none of them using lights or illumination or contrasts created on the surfaces of the object to be examined, Baer teaches increasing the surface gradient measurement accuracy without increasing the number of images required to determine the surface gradient, while Schafer describes ultrasonic techniques to detect and characterize internal defects in logs. App. Br. 9-10 ( emphasis omitted). This argument addresses each reference individually and does not sufficiently address the Examiner's proposed combination. "But one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 426 (CCP A 1981 ). Here, the Examiner relies on Berube for teaching inspecting lumber using a conveyor, cameras taking pictures of all relevant sides at different angles, and lasers; Barker for teaching inspecting lumber using a processing unit and transversal two-dimensional images; Baer for teaching inspecting for defects using light to generate contrast; and Schafer for teaching inspecting for defects of openings, checks, shakes, or splits in lumber. Final Act. 6-7. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination teaches all of the claimed limitations. 3 Appeal2017-011213 Application 13/096,529 Turning to the combination, Appellant further argues that "one skilled in the art would find no reason to modify Berube by Barker, Baer and Schafer" because: it is improper to apply Berube - a reference that teaches a protective enclosure for a linear inspection system - with a reference like Baker which teaches obtaining feedback on which pieces of lumber are obtained from each processed log in a saw mill, or Baer, which teaches optical inspection systems for imaging objects such as solder joints and components[] on printed circuit boards. Br. 9 ( emphasis omitted); see also id. at 10. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. We agree with the Examiner that all of the prior art references are in similar endeavors of inspection and defect detection. Ans. 6-7. As Appellant notes, Berube, Barker, and Schafer all relate to the inspection and detection of defects in lumber. Br. 9, 10; Berube 1:4--25; Barker,r,r 10-12; Schafer,I 3. Baer similarly relates to an "optical inspection system" for "quality control purposes." Baer ,r,r 3, 5. Although the particular embodiments described in Baer involve inspecting printed circuit boards (see Baer ,r 5), neither the summary of Baer nor its claims are so limited. E.g., Baer ,r,r 9-11. Moreover, the Supreme Court has instructed that "when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quotation omitted). Here, Appellant does not argue that using Baer's visible light and cameras-whether instead of or in addition to Berube and Barker's lasers and cameras or Shafer's ultrasonic signals-would have yielded anything other than a predictable result. See 4 Appeal2017-011213 Application 13/096,529 also Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 60- 61 (1969) (no synergistic result). Similarly, Appellant "presents no evidence that the [Examiner's proposed modification] was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner determining that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to modify Berube to add the teachings of Baer as above and use it on the surfaces of a wood piece to determine surface gradients at the spatial locations on the surface of the object for use in reconstructing a greater than two-dimensional image of the shape of the surface of the object." Final Act. 7 (citing Baer ,r 9); see also Ans. 3. Appellant further argues that Hubert and Fahrenschon do not remedy the deficiencies for claims 1 and 19. Br. 13-16. For the reasons discussed above, though, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred for claims 1 and 19. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 19, and their dependent claims 3-18 and 21-28, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 11-16; 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-19, and 21-28. No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 5