Ex Parte Nejah

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

12830225 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/830,225 07/02/2010 Allen Nejah
32566 7590 04/20/2016
PA TENT LAW GROUP LLP
465 Fairchild Drive
Suite 125
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.
SME-PllO 1086
EXAMINER
PHAM,NAMD
Mountain View, CA 94043 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2016 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):
sandy@patentlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALLEN NEJAH
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is SunMan Engineering,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
STATEMENT OF THE fNVENTION
Claim 1 is directed to a golf ball finder which captures and analyzes
thermal images to search for golf balls. Abstract; App. Br. 10 (Claims
Appx. ). Claim 1 7 is directed to a flow meter which captures and analyzes
thermal images of fluid in a pipe, and determining the velocity and cross-
sectional area of the fluid to calculate a flow rate of the fluid. Spec. i-fi-f 15-
16, 20-21; App. Br. 12 (Claims Appx.). Claims 1and17, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A golf ball finder, comprising:
a thermal imaging camera or sensor;
a nonvolatile memory storing a detection software; and
a processor for executing the detection software, wherein
the processor is programmed to locate a golf ball by:
causing the thermal imaging camera or sensor to
capture a thermal image of a portion of a golf course excluding a
tee box;
searching the thermal image for one or more
thermal signatures of the golf ball; and
when the golf ball is located, providing an indicator
for the golf ball.
17. A flow rate meter, comprising:
a thermal imaging camera or sensor;
a nonvolatile memory storing a flow rate software; and
a processor for executing the flow rate software, wherein
the processor is programmed to determine a flow rate in a pipe
by:
causing the thermal imaging camera or sensor to
capture two or more thermal images of the pipe from outside of
the pipe;
2
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
determining a height of a fluid in the pipe from the
thermal images;
determining a cross-sectional area of the fluid in the pipe
from the height of the fluid in the pipe and a radius or diameter
of the pipe;
determining a velocity of the fluid in the pipe from the
thermal images; and
determining the flow rate of the fluid in the pipe based on
the cross-sectional area and the velocity of the fluid in the pipe.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Barelli
Go bush
Gobush II
Lock
Pollack
1'-Jaini
US 6, 729 ,966 B 1
US 7,143,639 B2
US 2007/0060410 Al
US 2010/0210377 Al
US 2011/0157351 Al
us 2011/0170786 i\.l
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
May4, 2004
Dec. 5, 2006
Mar. 15, 2007
Aug. 19, 2010
June 30, 2011
July 14, 2011
Claims 1, 6-9, and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gobush and Lock (Final. Act. 3-7).
Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gobush, Lock, and Gobush II (id. at 7-8).
Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Go bush, Lock, and Barelli (id. at 8-10).
Claims 17-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pollack and Naini (id. at 10-14).
3
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-24 in light
of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellant's conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which the appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2-14) and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 13-15). We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
ISSUE 1
35 USC§ 103(a): Claims 1-16
Issue 1 a: Did the Examiner err by finding Go bush teaches or suggests
capturing a "portion of a golf course excluding a tee box," as recited in claim
1 and similarly recited in claim 9?
Issue 1 b: Did the Examiner err by finding Go bush teaches or suggests
"searching the thermal image for one or more thermal signatures of the golf
ball," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 9?
Issue 1 c: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Gobush
and Lock teaches or suggests a "thermal imaging camera or sensor to
capture a thermal image," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim
9?
Issue 1 d: Did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings of
Gobush and Lock?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Gobush does not teach or suggest capturing a
"portion of a golf course excluding a tee box," as recited in claim 1 and
4
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
similarly recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 4--5; Reply. Br. 1-2). Specifically,
Appellant argues while "Go bush can take images of a portion of the golf
course excluding the tee box," Gobush does not "explicitly or inherently
disclose" capturing images "away from a tee box." (Reply Br. 1-2
(emphasis in original); App. Br. 4--5).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner's rejection is based on
obviousness. As set forth by the Examiner, Gobush teaches a system which
"acquire[s] one or more images of a field of view" (Final Act. 4--5 (citing
Go bush i-f 34) ), the acquired images including a background at the location
(i.e., a portion of the golf course) of the golf ball (Ans. 13 (citing Gobush
i-f 34) ). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to use
Gobush's system at different portions on a golf course, including portions
without a tee box, and that the images captured at golf course portions
without a tee box would exclude tee boxes. See Ans. 13; see also Final Act.
4--5.
Appellant's arguments, that Gobush does not explicitly or inherently
teach using Gobush's system at various portions of a golf course without a
tee box (App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 1-2), do not address the Examiner's
conclusion that it would have been obvious to use Gobush's system at
various portions of a golf course without a tee box (see Ans. 13-14 ).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by determining the
combination of Go bush and Lock teaches or suggests capturing a "portion of
a golf course excluding a tee box," as recited in claim 1.
Next, Appellant argues Gobush does not teach or suggest "searching
the thermal image for one or more thermal signatures of the golf ball," as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 5). Specifically,
5
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
Appellant argues Go bush does not "search[ ] for the golf ball in the captured
image[s] themselves" because Gobush "locates a golf ball by subtracting a
background image without the golf ball from the images with the golf ball,
and then look[ s] for the golf ball in the resulting images" (id.).
We are not persuaded. Appellant's argument, that searching by
modifying the acquired image does not search the acquired image (App. Br.
5), is not persuasive. Appellant is arguing limitations not recited in the
claims. Indeed, neither the claim nor the Specification preclude modifying
the acquired image before searching the acquired image. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred by finding the combination of
Gobush and Lock teaches or suggests "searching the thermal image," as
recited in claims 1 and 9.
Next, Appellant argues Lock does not teach or suggest "a thermal
imaging camera or sensor to capture a thermal image," as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claim 9 (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2). Specifically,
Appellant argues Lock's "IR (infrared) sensor that detects reflected IR (near
and short-wavelength IR) may not detect thermal IR (mid and long-
wavelength IR)" (App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2).
We are not persuaded. Appellant's argument, that Lock's image
system cannot capture emitted thermal IR because "[a ]t most Lock [ ]
discloses its camera captures reflected IR" (Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 5---6), is
not persuasive. Contrary to Appellant's argument, the Examiner's
combination does not rely on the bodily incorporation of an IR imaging
system to narrowly capture reflected IR (Ans. 14). Rather, the Examiner's
combination incorporates an IR camera into its system to capture the emitted
thermal IR of a golf ball (id.).
6
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Lock's IR camera detects IR
radiation from an object, whether the object itself emits IR radiation or
whether the object reflects IR radiation (Ans. 14 (citing Lock i-f 41)), i.e., the
camera detects the IR radiation regardless of how the radiation was formed.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, the thermal IR (a type of emitted
IR radiation) that an object emits is captured by IR cameras (id.). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found
it obvious to use IR cameras in Gobush's system to capture thermal IR
images (id.)
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to use IR cameras to capture emitted
thermal IR radiation, since IR cameras capture IR radiation, whether that
radiation is reflected or thermally emitted (Ans. 13-14). Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the combination of Go bush and Lock fails to teach or
suggest "a thermal imaging camera or sensor to capture a thermal image," as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 9.
Next, Appellant argues the modification of Gobush would render
Gobush unsuitable for its intended purpose because modifying Gobush to
capture images "from behind the tee box looking downrange" (i.e., capturing
images from behind the ball, rather than from in front of the ball) would not
properly capture the ball launch properties desired by Gobush (App. Br. 5;
Reply Br. 2). However, the Examiner's modification does not capture
images "from behind the tee box"; rather, the proposed modification
captures images at various different portions of a golf course, as discussed
supra (Ans. 13-14; Final Act. 4--5). Thus, Appellant has not proffered
7
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner's modification
renders Gobush unsuitable for its intended purpose.
Next, Appellant argues the combination of Go bush and Lock is
improper because the Examiner's reasoning for the combination is circular
(App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2). We are not persuaded. The Examiner's finds an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Gobush by
substituting Lock's IR camera in place of Go bush's camera, to create a
device to identify a golf ball by processing an infrared image taken from an
infrared camera (see Ans. 13-14; see also Final Act. 5). Thus, the Examiner
has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gobush with the techniques
of Locke (Ans. 13-14; Final Act. 5). Appellant has not proffered sufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner's articulated reasoning is
m error.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 2-8
and 10-16 were not separately argued (Reply Br. 6). It follows that we
sustain the rejections of claims 2-8 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ISSUE 2
35 US.C. § 103(a): Claims 17-24
Issue 2 a: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Pollack
and N aini teaches or suggests a "thermal imaging camera or sensor to
capture two or more thermal images," as recited in claim 17 and similarly
recited in claim 21?
8
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
Issue 2b: Did the Examiner err by finding Pollack teaches or suggests
capturing images "from outside of the pipe," as recited in claim 17 and
similarly recited in claim 21?
Issue 2c: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Pollack
and Naini teaches or suggests "determining a height of a fluid in the pipe ...
determining a cross-sectional area of the fluid in the pipe ... determining a
velocity of the fluid in the pipe," as recited in claim 17 and similarly recited
in claim 21?
Issue 2 d: Did the Examiner err by finding Pollack teaches or suggests
"nondestructively capturing" images of the pipe as recited in claim 21?
Issue 2 e: Did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings of
Pollack and Naini?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the combination of Pollack and Naini does not teach
or suggest "causing the thermal imaging camera or sensor to capture two or
more thermal images of the pipe," as recited in claim 1 7 and similarly
recited in claim 21 (App. Br. 7). Specifically, Appellant argues Pollack
"captures reflected IR instead of thermal IR" (id.). Similar to the discussion
above with respect to claim 1, Appellant's arguments are not persuasive
because the Examiner's obviousness rejection is directed to capturing IR
radiation, whether or not that IR radiation is reflected or thermally emitted
(Ans. 13-14).
Additionally, Appellant argues Pollack does not teach or suggest
"capturing two or more thermal images of the pipe from outside the pipe," as
recited in claim 17 and similarly recited in claim 21 (Reply Br. 3).
9
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
Specifically, Appellant argues "Pollack only discloses capturing images
from inside the pipe" (id.). However, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Pollack's external camera 26 captures images of the pipe (Final Act. 10
(citing Pollack Fig. 2)). While the distal end 32 of Pollack's probe 20 is
inside the pipe, the actual camera that captures images is outside of the pipe
(Pollack i-f 29, Fig. 2 (showing camera 26 outside of pipe 18)). Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the combination of Pollack and Naini fails to teach or
suggest "capturing two or more thermal images of the pipe from outside the
pipe," as recited in claim 17 and similarly recited in claim 21.
Next, Appellant argues Naini does not teach or suggest "determining a
height and a cross-sectional area of a fluid in a pipe," as recited in claim 17
and similarly recited in claim 21 (App. Br. 7). Specifically, Appellant
argues "Naini only discloses determining the height, width, and surface area
of particles instead of a fluid in a pipe" (id. (emphasis in original)).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Pollack
teaches capturing images of fluid in a pipe (Final Act. 10 (citing Pollack
i-f 40, Figs. 2-3); Ans. 14). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Naini
teaches a method of analyzing captured images to determine height and
surface area of features in the image (Final Act. 11 (citing N aini i-f 51 ); Ans.
14--15). As cross-sectional area is calculated using a formula based on the
height and area (Ans. 15), we agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have found it obvious to apply Naini, which teaches
analyzing images for height and area, to analyze the fluid in Pollack's image
for height and area in order to calculate the fluid's cross-sectional area (id. at
14--15).
10
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
Appellant's argument, that Naini does not teach its method is used
specifically for pipe fluids (App. Br. 7), is not persuasive of Examiner error
because the Examiner's rejection applies Naini's method of analyzing
images to determine the height and cross-sectional area of Pollack's pipe
fluid images (Ans. 15). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination
of Pollack and Naini fails to teach or suggest "determining a height and a
cross-sectional area of a fluid in a pipe," as recited in claim 17 and similarly
recited in claim 21.
Next, Appellant argues Pollack does not teach or suggest
"nondestructively capturing two or more thermal images of the pipe," as
recited in claim 21 (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4). Specifically, Appellant argues
"instead of nondestructively capturing images," Pollack's "transmission
media 30 is inserted into pipe 18 in order for sensor 26 to look inside pipe
18" (App. Br. 8).
We are not persuaded. While Appellant argues that inserting
transmission media into a pipe is destructive, Appellant has not identified
any argument or evidence to persuade us inserting transmission media into a
pipe is destructive (Reply Br. 8). Indeed, we are persuaded Pollack's
insertion of transmission media into a pipe is nondestructive because fluid
still flows through the pipe and the pipe continues to function as a pipe (i.e.,
as a conduit for fluid) (Pollack i-fi-126, 40). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the combination of Pollack and Naini fails to teach or suggest
"nondestructively capturing two or more thermal images of the pipe," within
the meaning of claim 21.
Appellant additionally argues the Examiner's motivation to combine
Pollack and Naini is improper because "Pollack already discloses a method
11
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
to measure velocity without needing height and cross-sectional area of a
fluid inside a pipe" taught by Naini and the Examiner's reasoning is circular
(App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner has articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning, i.e., to form a flow meter measuring velocity, height,
and cross-sectional area of a fluid inside a pipe to then determine flow rate
and velocity (Final Act. 11 ). Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence
or argument to persuade us an ordinarily skilled artisan would not look to
improve prior technology or to persuade us the Examiner's articulated
motivation is in error. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Pollack and Naini.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 17 and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 18-
20 and 22-24 were not separately argued (Reply. Br. 8-9). It follows that
we sustain the rejection of claims 18-20 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6-9, and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gobush and Lock is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 10, and 11under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gobush, Lock, and Gobush II is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gobush, Lock, and Barelli is affirmed.
12
Appeal2014-007400
Application 12/830,225
The Examiner's rejection of claims 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pollack and Naini is affirmed.
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) (2009).
AFFIRMED
13