Ex Parte Salopuro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2013

11118052 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANTTI SALOPURO and PEKKA LEHTIKOSKI

Appeal 2010-0110731
Application 11/118,052
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Career Options and Opportunities Metso
Automation Oy. (App Br. 1.)
Appeal 2010-011073
Application 11/118,052

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-29. (App. Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for determining the
frequency distribution for the dimensions of imaged objects. (Spec. [0001].)
In particular, upon measuring the real dimensions of the objects, a processor
weighs the probability of the measured dimensions to thereby generate a real
frequency distribution associated therewith. (Fig. 1-3, Spec. [0006], [0021].)

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method for determining a frequency distribution for
dimensions of objects, in which method there is available an
image from which the frequency distribution of imaged objects
is determined; the method comprising
defining a measured dimension of an object in the image
being a real dimension; and
modifying, via a processor, the frequency distribution of
the dimensions of the objects measured from the image by a
weighting operation associated with a probability of the real
dimensions of the objects being imaged in the image.

Appeal 2010-011073
Application 11/118,052

3
Prior Art Relied Upon
Sakamoto US 4,288,162 Sep. 8, 1981
Harrington US 5,317,650 May 31, 1994
Kosaka US 5,721,433 Feb. 24, 1998

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-15, 18, 20-24, 27, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sakamoto.
2. Claims 8, 16, 17, 25, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sakamoto and
Kosaka.
3. Claims 2, 10, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Sakamoto and Harrington.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7-12, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-5.

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in
finding that Sakamoto describes modifying the frequency distribution of the
real dimensions of an object by weighing the probability associated
therewith, as recited in claim 1?

Appeal 2010-011073
Application 11/118,052

4
Appellants argue that Sakamoto does not describe the disputed
limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-4.) In particular,
Appellants argue that while Sakamoto discloses capturing/measuring images
of an object and determining particles dimensions associated therewith to
thereby create a particle size distribution therefor, Sakamoto discloses using
assumed dimensions (sphere or ellipsoid) for the particles, as opposed to real
dimensions thereof, as required by claim 1. (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-4.)
That is, while Sakamoto generates a frequency distribution function for real
objects, such function is generated using assumed dimensions, and not real
or observed dimensions of the particles. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner concludes that because Appellants’
Specification does not provide a definition for “real dimension”, the cited
expression can be broadly and reasonably construed to read on Sakamoto’s
disclosure of generating a distribution function based on the measured
dimensions of objects. (Ans. 12.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we find error with the
Examiner’s finding anticipation regarding claim 1. We begin our analysis
by first considering the scope and meaning of the claim limitation “real
dimensions” which must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, as explained in In re Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.
Appeal 2010-011073
Application 11/118,052

5

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that “claims must be interpreted
as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”). Our reviewing court further
states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary
artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
In particular, Appellants’ Specification states the following:
The image processing unit 106 may measure the
dimensions of the objects and generate a frequency distribution
for the dimensions of the imaged objects.… The signal
processing unit 108 modifies the frequency distribution of the
dimensions of the imaged objects in order to generate the real
frequency distribution of the dimensions of the objects.

(Spec. [0021] (emphasis added).)

The measurement is carried out in a space the size of which
allows each object to assume a position that is at least partially
free.… [T]he frequency distribution of the dimensions of the
objects measured from the image are modified by a weighting
operation associated with the probability of the real dimensions
of the objects being imaged in the image.

(Spec. [0022] (emphasis added).)

Since the position of an individual object is impossible to know,
the real dimension of the object cannot be determined with
precision. However, when a large set of objects is imaged in
one sample and the probability, or statistical dependency,
associated with the position of the objects in the space to be
measured is known, the frequency distribution of the measured
Appeal 2010-011073
Application 11/118,052

6
projection lengths can be converted to the frequency
distribution of the objects.

(Spec. [0023] (emphasis added).)
We note that the relevant portions of Appellants’ Specification cited
above do not provide an express definition of “real dimensions.”
Nonetheless, the cited emphasized portions of the Specification (and the
disputed limitations) indicate that while the real dimensions are measured
dimensions of real objects, these measurements are not accurate. That is, the
size of the space in which these measurements are carried out allows each of
the objects to assume a position corresponding to the probability associated
therewith. Accordingly, consistent with the Specification, we broadly but
reasonably construe “real dimensions” as the dimensions (length/width)
measured from a real object wherein the measured dimensions may be
obtained based on an assumption of the position of the object in space.
Sakamoto discloses a method for determining the distribution function
of projected image particles. (Abstr.) In particular, a computer processes
image data for each particle to determine the area thereof by measuring the
diameter of the particle and the total number of particles to compute the
weight of the particle proportionally to the overall weight within the range of
particle sizes to thereby display a particle distribution computed in the form
of a histogram. (Col. 4, ll. 43-59.) Further, Sakamoto discloses that the
result of the measurement of particle size distribution is based on an
assumption that the configuration of each particle is a sphere. (Col. 6, ll. 14-
36.) We find that Sakamoto’s disclosure of measuring the size
Appeal 2010-011073
Application 11/118,052

7
(area/diameter) of each particle having an assumed spherical configuration
describes at best the measurement of an assumed size of the particle, which
unlike the real dimension, is not an actual or observed size of the particle.
Thus, while the claimed real dimension of an object may be obtained from
an assumed position of the object in space, Sakamoto’s measurement of the
object is obtained based on an assumed size thereof, and not its actual
position in space. Because Appellants have shown at least one error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’
remaining arguments. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
as being anticipated by Sakamoto.
Because claims 2-29 recite the disputed limitations discussed above
and the additional citations relied upon by the Examiner do not cure the
noted deficiencies, we similarly find error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2-29 for the foregoing reasons.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-29 as set forth
above.
REVERSED

msc