Ex Parte Schultze et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2014

12465940 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/465,940 05/14/2009 Stephan SCHULTZE 011456.00009 4729
26712 7590 09/15/2014
HODGSON RUSS LLP
THE GUARANTY BUILDING
140 PEARL STREET
SUITE 100
BUFFALO, NY 14202-4040
EXAMINER
CHEDEKEL, TABITHA F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2876
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN SCHULTZE and
HOLGER SCHNABEL
__________

Appeal 2012-012606
Application 12/465,940
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a sensor for and a method for
sensing marks on or in material (Spec. para. [0002]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A sensor (100) for sensing a mark (502) on or in a material, the
sensor comprising:
a camera sensor (102) that scans, at least by a line scan, a portion
(106) of the surface of the material (402) for the mark (502); and
Appeal 2012-012606
Application 12/465,940

2
an analyzing logic unit (104) connected to the camera sensor (102) to
emit a signal (108) when the mark (502) is detected by the camera sensor
(102) on the scanned portion (106) of the surface of the material (402),
wherein the signal corresponds to a position of the mark (502) on or in the
material (402) relative to time, and wherein the analyzing logic unit (104)
includes logic elements set to perform fixed logic operations to determine
the signal (108) emitted by the analyzing logic unit (104).

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
as being unpatentable over Bridgelall (US 5,525,788, issued June 11,
1996) in view of Allen (US 5,578,813, issued Nov. 26, 1996).
2. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bridgelall in view of Allen and Granholm (US
4,237,375, issued Dec. 2, 1980).
3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bridgelall in view of Allen and Mennie (US 6,721,442 B2,
issued Apr. 13, 2004).

REJECTION (1)
Appellants’ arguments focus on subject matter common to
independent claims 1, 18, 19, and 20 (Br. 7).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that the combined teachings of
Bridgelall and Allen would have suggested modifying Bridgelall’s camera
sensor to determine a signal corresponding to a position of the mark on or in
the material relative to time? We decide this issue in the negative.

Appeal 2012-012606
Application 12/465,940

3
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner finds that Bridgelall teaches the subject matter of
claims 1 and 18-20, except for the signal corresponding to a position of the
mark on or in the material relative to time (Answer 4-5, 9-10). The
Examiner finds that Allen teaches shaped light beams and interpreting
images of where these beams intercept the moving object to determine a
position of the mark on or in material relative to time (Answer 5, 9-10, 15).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious to
modify Bridgelall to include the limitations taught by Allen to accurately
read a barcode contained on a document (Answer 5, 9-10).
Appellants argue that Allen does not teach a signal that corresponds to
a position of a mark detected by a camera sensor as required by claims 1 and
18-201 (App. Br. 5). Appellants contend that Allen only teaches measuring
accelerations and velocities with non-camera based sensors (Br. 6).
Appellants argue that Allen’s single example of a using a camera to
determine scanner location is independent of time, which is contrary to what
is required by the claims (Br. 6). Appellants argue that embodiments in
Allen do not measure acceleration or velocity to determine position (Br. 7).
Appellants further contend that Allen does not rely upon a detected mark for
measuring accelerations or velocities unlike what is required by the claims
(Br. 7-8). Appellants contend that Allen’s positional information is
determined by differentiating a measured acceleration or velocity with
respect to a fixed coordinate system, so that the positional information

1 Appellants have not explained where the camera limitation is present in
method claims 19 and 20. We fail to see any explicit recitation of using a
camera sensor as required by claims 1 and 18.
Appeal 2012-012606
Application 12/465,940

4
would be the same regardless of whether a mark is detected or not by the
image sensor (Br. 7-8).
Appellants’ arguments not persuasive because they fail to specifically
address or show error in the Examiner’s findings that Allen discloses using
shaped light beams and interpreting position of the images of where these
beams intercept the moving object to sense position and orientation (Answer
15). Furthermore, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
finding that Allen discloses using camera navigation sensors 24 and 26 to
determine the acceleration and velocity and integrating with respect to time
(i.e., determining position and orientation information with respect to time)
by observing a moving object 14, which contains the electronic image, and
producing an indication of the displacement in two planar dimensions
between successive observations (Br. 15). Appellants do not contest or
show error in the Examiner’s finding that the portion of Allen cited in the
Office Action (i.e., column 8, lines 35-59) includes imaging embodiments
for determining velocity and acceleration using light beams (Answer 16).
No Reply Brief has been filed.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s reason for modifying
Bridgelall with Allen’s teaching lacks rational underpinning (Br. 8).
Appellants contend that Allen is concerned with assembling a composite
image from a series of images captured by a hand-held scanner (Br. 8).
Appellants contend that Bridgelall does not need Allen’s teaching regarding
formulating a composite image because Bridgelall reads the entire barcode
using a laser scanner and has no need to obtain positional information in
order to assemble a composite image of a barcode (Br. 8). Appellants
contend that the Examiner has failed to explain why one of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2012-012606
Application 12/465,940

5
the art would have used Allen’s sensor to improve the barcode scanner of
Bridgelall (Br. 8-9).
The Examiner finds that while Bridgelall uses a laser scanner to read
the image, Bridgeall first locates and detects the barcode using an imaging
camera (Answer 18). The Examiner finds that modifying Bridgelall to
include the ability to stitch several individual images together to determine
positional information would allow for a more accurate location of the mark
in question, thus allowing the scanner to more easily scan the mark/barcode
and decode it (Answer 18). Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified
Bridgeall’s device to include Allen’s teachings in order to allow for more
accurate location of the mark/barcode in question prior to reading (No Reply
Brief has been filed). We find that the Examiner’s stated reason for the
combination has a rational underpinning in the teachings of Bridgelall and
Allen taken as a whole.
Therefore, we find that the preponderance of the evidence favors the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. On this record, we affirm the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, and 15-20 over
Bridgelall and Allen.

REJECTION (2): Claims 4 and 6
Appellants argue that Bridgelall’s device does not teach a logic
circuit that relates to the CCD/CMD camera, but rather the logic circuit is
tied to the scanner (Br. 9-10).
Appellants’ argument fails to address the Examiner’s finding that the
location input of the CCD/CMD camera is used to optimize the scanning
Appeal 2012-012606
Application 12/465,940

6
parameters of the scanner 40 (Answer 19). The Examiner finds that column
10, lines 10-57 of Bridgelall teaches electrical signals from the camera 618
are transmitted to a frame grabber 616 which converts the signals into a
digital representation of the original image and then transmits to a decoder
614, which may be embodied in a subroutine operating on the
microprocessor 10 (Answer 19). The Examiner finds that the decoder 614
performs fixed logic operations (i.e., decoding) to determine the signal from
the camera 618 (Ans. 19). The Examiner finds that the column 16 disclosure
of Bridgelall includes a CCD camera (Answer 20).
Appellants’ argument does not dispute or show error in any of these
findings of the Examiner. On this record, the preponderance of the evidence
favors the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. We affirm the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claims 4 and 6 over Bridgelall in view of Allen and
Granholm.

REJECTION (3): Claim 14
Appellants rely on the same unpersuasive arguments made regarding
claim 1. We affirm the § 103 rejection of claim 14 for the same reasons we
affirmed the rejection of claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision 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)(1)(iv).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
cam