Ex Parte GEHRING et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2019

13918153 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/918,153 06/14/2013
20529 7590 06/28/2019
NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER
Joshua Goldberg
112 South West Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roland GEHRING
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.
32727U 2344
EXAMINER
LEE,JIMMYS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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):
USPTO@nathlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLAND GEHRING AND WRGEN REICHENBACH 1
Appeal2017-005562
Application 13/918,153
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-16, which are all claims pending in this
application. 2 App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
An oral hearing was conducted on March 12, 2019. A transcript of the oral
hearing was made of record on June 17, 2019.
1 Appellants list SICK AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed
April 18, 2016 ("App. Br.") 3.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
February, 25, 2016 ("Final Act."); and the Examiner's Answer mailed
January 11, 2017 ("Answer").
Appeal2017-005562
Application 13/918,153
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to
detecting of a flow of objects by means of a plurality of detection units.
Specification 1 :4---6. Figure 1, reproduced below, is a schematic three-
dimensional top view of a camera system according to the invention at a
conveyer belt with objects to be detected. Id. at 10:5---6.
Fig. 1
Figure 1 shows conveyor belt 12 with objects such as object 14
bearing codes such as code 16. Id. at 10:14--15. The camera system
includes two cameras 18a and 18b that are additionally equipped with a
decoding unit for finding and preparing of code regions and reading of code
information. Id. at 10:21-26. Two cameras are used because the conveyor
belt is too wide for codes on all objects to be detected via only one of the
two, and so the entire conveyor belt is covered by the two cameras'
2
Appeal2017-005562
Application 13/918,153
detection zones (20a, 20b), which overlap. Id. at 11:1-9. The image data
captured by both cameras thus contains redundant data, and the image data is
used "to stitch a common image over the overall wi[ d]th of the conveyor
belt." Id. at 11 :7-9, 13: 11-21. The connection line in a common image
where image data from different cameras are joined is positioned by
considering regions of image so that areas of interest ( such as codes or
objects) are avoided, so data for an area of interest in the common image
comes from the image data from only one detection unit. Id. at 14:1-15:14,
Fig. 3.
Representative Claims
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Independent claim 1 is
representative, and reads as follows:
1. A camera system ( 10) for the detection of a flow of
objects (14) moved relative to the camera system, the camera
system (10) comprising a plurality of detection units (18a-b ),
said detection units respectively having an image sensor for the
reception of image data from a detection zone (20a-b ), said
image data partially overlapping and said sensors together
covering the width of the flow of objects (14), and the camera
system further comprising an evaluation unit (28) for the
combination of image data of the detection units (18a-b) to a
common image as well as for the identification of regions of
interest in the image data, said evaluation unit (28) being
configured to only use image data of the same detection unit
( 18a-b) within one region of interest for the common image on
combining.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
Re} ections on Appeal
Claims 1--4, 7, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chaleff et al. (US 2005/0094236 Al, published May 5,
3
Appeal2017-005562
Application 13/918,153
2005) and Pasupaleti et al. (2010/0194851 Al, published Aug. 5, 2010).
Final Act. 5-10.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chaleff, Pasupaleti, and Nubling et al. (2009/0048705 Al,
published Feb. 19, 2009). Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chaleff, Pasupaleti, and Wurz et al. (2007 /0164202 Al,
published July 19, 2007). Final Act. 11-12.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chaleff, Pasupaleti, Wurz, and Reichenbach et al.
(2008/0310765 Al, published Dec. 18, 2008). Final Act. 12-13.
ANALYSIS
A claim is unpatentable for obviousness if, to one of ordinary skill in
the pertinent art, "the differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
have been obvious at the time the invention was made." KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)). The
question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations, including "the scope and content of the prior art";
"differences between the prior art and the claims at issue"; and "the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art." Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17-18 (1966).
A patent claim "is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that
each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art." KSR, 550
U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding "both 'that a
skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
4
Appeal2017-005562
Application 13/918,153
prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.'"
Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367-
68 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (for an obviousness analysis,
"it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person
of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does").
We analyze the obviousness rejection with these principles in mind.
The Examiner combines teachings of Chaleff and Pasupaleti in the
rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 5---6. Chaleff discloses the scanning of an
area using at least two linear array sensors to transmit an optical image in a
field of view, in order to read barcodes or other labels. Chaleff,I,I 35, 42.
Chaleff teaches that this allows for a system field of view of greater width
than a single sensor system would. Id. ,r 38. An overlap is set between the
fields of view of the sensors is set in order to ensure that known-size
barcodes or labels can be read entirely by one sensor, without the need for
combining two partial codes read by different sensors. Id. ,r 42. If, for
example, an entire barcode is in the field of view of two sensors, only one
reading of that barcode is taken. Id. Pasupaleti relates to the generation of
panoramic images by acquiring a plurality of images and stitching them
together. Pasupaleti ,r,r 23, 31, Abstract. Pasupaleti teaches that a stitching
line is determined for the stitching of the images in order to give minimum
error and avoid misalignment. Id. ,r,r 32, 68.
The Examiner finds that Chaleff teaches most of the limitations of the
claim, but does not teach combining image data from detection units to form
a common image. Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner finds Pasupaleti to teach
5
Appeal2017-005562
Application 13/918,153
stitching images together to form a common image, and that one of ordinary
skill would have found it obvious to combine this with the teachings of
Chaleff. Id. at 6.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
obvious over a combination of Chaleff and Pasupaleti because Chaleff does
not teach "an evaluation unit ... for the combination of image data of the
detection units ... to a common image as well as for the identification of
regions of interest in the image data." Appeal Br. 9 (quoting claim 1).
Appellants argue that Chaleff only teaches avoiding "code stitching" where
two partial codes must be combined, and not "image stitching" where the
complete field of view of each sensor is combined. Id. at 9-10. Appellants
argue that "'reading of a label' or barcode is common language in the art for
decoding, rather than acquiring image data." Id. at 10. This argument is not
persuasive; Chaleff explicitly teaches the receipt of an optical image by
array sensors. Chaleff,I 35; see also id. ,r 10 (discussing scanning of
"symbologies or images"). We agree with the Examiner that "Chaleff' s
'reading of a label' is similar to acquiring image data." Answer 13 ("what is
being done is recognition of either a label or barcode using received optical
images"). To the extent these arguments imply reliance on Chaleff, rather
than Pasupaleti, for the combination of image data to form a common image,
we note that the Examiner relies on Pasupaleti for this feature. Final Act. 6.
Next, Appellants argue that "the elimination of double readings ... in
Chaleff does not teach identifying regions of interest and using image data
from only one camera" for all such regions, but rather teaches use avoidance
of "double-reading" only for those regions fully present in the fields of view
of both cameras in Chaleff. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellants,
6
Appeal2017-005562
Application 13/918,153
"Chaleff differs from the present claims not only in teaching independent
processing of optical data in each camera, but also in using code or label
data acquired from the information from only one camera, only in the case
that the entire code falls within the fields of view of both cameras." Id. at 10
( emphasis added). This argument is not persuasive. First, the Examiner
finds that that labels in Chaleff which fall in both fields of view teach the
claimed "region of interest" for which only image data from one detection
unit is used in the common image. Final Action 6 (citing Chaleff,I 42); id.
at 3. Thus, any deficiency in Chaleff s teachings with respect to labels
which fall only partially in the field of view of one camera is not persuasive
of error. Second, even if all barcodes or labels in Chaleff are "regions of
interest," Chaleff teaches that the linear area sensors and overlap are chosen
so "known size barcodes or other labels can be read entirely by one of the
linear array sensors" "without the need for advanced logic for combining
partial codes." Chaleff ,I 42. Thus, while Chaleff explicitly discusses only
the case in which a label falls completely within the field of view of each
sensor, one of ordinary skill would understand Chaleff to teach that in the
case in which a label "can be read entirely" by one sensor but only partially
by the other, that the data from the sensor reading the entirety of the label
would be used.
Appellants additionally argue that Pasulapeti "does not mention
identifying or avoiding any regions of interest" in placing the stitching line,
and that the objects to be avoided in stitching are "objects that would create
artifacts due to motion [ during] the non-simultaneous acquisition of the
images to be combined," thus Pasupaleti "does not teach avoiding stitching
through regions of interest" and thereby cannot "cure the above deficiencies
7
Appeal2017-005562
Application 13/918,153
of Chaleff." Appeal Br. 11. As discussed above, we agree with the
Examiner that Chaleff teaches the use of data for an object or label from one
image sensor only, avoiding combining image data from two different
sensors. See Answer 16. We further agree that Pasupaleti teaches stitching
across the best agreement regions and having the stitching line placed to
avoid misalignments; which in combination with Chaleff, would indicate a
stitching line avoiding a label or barcode (region of interest) so data from
only one sensor is used for such regions. Id. at 14--16; Pasupaleti ,r 68.
Thus, we agree that the claimed configuration of an evaluation unit "to only
use image data of the same detection unit (18a-b) within one region of
interest for the common image on combining" limitation is taught or
suggested in the combination of Chaleff and Pasupaleti.
Lastly, Appellants argue that "there would be no motivation to
combine the optical data of Chaleff into a single image" as Chaleff discloses
optical data that is independently processed and "completely avoids the issue
of combining images and avoiding artifacts from image stitching." Appeal
Br. 12. However, the Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill would
be motivated to combine Pasupaleti's creation of a common image with
Chaleff's scanning system "to give a panoramic view." Final Act. 6, see
also id. at 9 ( discussing similar claim 14, finding one of ordinary skill would
combine Chaleff and Pasupaleti to "give a panoramic view to widen the
image area and the determination of Chaleff would indicate a section of the
image which could not be stitched together"); Answer 16-17. We agree that
one of ordinary skill in the art would use the combination to provide a
panoramic view with minimum error.
8
Appeal2017-005562
Application 13/918,153
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claims 2-16, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1-16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9