Michael D. Mcaninch et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 28, 2019

13921300 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/921,300 06/19/201J 131036 7590 09/11/2019 BWXT c/o Nelson'Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP One Wells Fargo Center 301 South College Street, 23rd Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael D McANINCH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box l450 Alo,iu1dria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Case 7515 5706 EXAMINER SHAHNAMI, AMIR ARTUNIT PAPER NUMBER 2489 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/ll/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): ip@nelsonmullins.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PA TENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL D. MCANINCH, TROY D. PASKELL, JEFFREY A. MABEE, THOMAS E. DOYLE, and DARREN M. BARBORAK Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 19-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention enables visually monitoring objects that are obscured by a high intensity light source, such as plasma, flame, or welding arc. Spec. ,r 2. To this end, the specific wavelength signature for an 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as BWXT Nuclear Operations Group, Inc. Br. 1. Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 application, such as a welding process, is measured, and this information is used to tailor the associated imaging or monitoring system based on that information. Id. ,r 50. In one implementation, spectral regions of low intensity light emission, or "dark regions," are determined that represent potential wavelength regions for a structured lighting-based portion of the visual monitoring or imaging system. Id. ,r 51. Suitable LEDs are then selected whose wavelengths correspond to these "dark regions" to illuminate the area surrounding the welding arc. Id. ,r 52. Claim 4 is illustrative: 4. A method of imaging a work piece with a visual monitoring, or imaging, system comprising a digital camera, a light emitting diode light source, and a filter, wherein the work piece is being subjected to an intense light source during a welding operation, the method comprising the step of: determining a wavelength signature of the welding process; determining a wavelength band of a plurality of low intensity light emission regions within the wavelength signature of the welding process; determining a wavelength band of each of a plurality of light emitting diodes; comparing the wavelength bands of the plurality of light emitting diodes with the wavelength bands of the low intensity light emission regions of the wavelength signature; and selecting a light emitting diode from the plurality of light emitting diodes so that the wavelength band of the light emitting diode corresponds with one of the wavelength bands of the low intensity light emission regions of the wavelength signatures, wherein the wavelength band of the selected light emitting diode falls entirely within the wavelength signature of the welding process. 2 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. Ans. 3-7.2 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Hoertenhuber (US 2012/0229632 Al; published Sept. 13, 2012), Penrod (US 2011/0006047 Al; published Jan. 13, 2011), and Badr M. Abdullah, Monitoring of Welding Using Laser Diodes, SEMICONDUCTOR LASER DIODE TECH. & APPLICATIONS 241-59, www.intechopen.com (2012) ("Abdullah"). Ans. 7-19. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 8, 12-15, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Hoertenhuber, Penrod, Abdullah, and Taft (US 4,794,452; issued Dec. 27, 1988). Ans. 19-28. THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION The Examiner determines that the claims lack patentable utility as merely an "insignificant method to the judicial exception," nor do the claims add significantly more to that exception. Ans. 3-4. According to the Examiner, the claimed invention is analogous to the mental process at issue in Smartgene, Inc. v. Adv. Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( unpublished) where information was gathered, new and stored information compared, and options identified using rules. See Ans. 3-4, 29. Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Smartgene is misplaced because determining a wavelength signature of a welding process is not a mental step that can be undertaken in the same manner as in 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 28, 2018 ("Br.") and the Examiner's Answer mailed June 22, 2018 ("Ans."). 3 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 Smartgene, where the district court3 held that the claimed invention was nothing more than a computer implementation of a mental process that a doctor performs when treating a patient. Br. 6-8. ISSUE UnderÂ§ 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 19-26 as directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue turns on whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether recited elements--considered individually and as an ordered combination- transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea. PRINCIPLES OF LAW An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 to include implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208, 21,6 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus 3 Although Appellants refer to the district court decision, Smartgene, Inc. v. Adv. Biological Labs., SA, 852 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2012), on page 6 of the Brief, we nonetheless refer, as does the Examiner (see Ans. 4 ), to the subsequent Federal Circuit decision Smartgene, Inc. v. Adv. Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (unpublished). 4 Appeal 2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593,611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk."). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 68 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981 )); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 ("We view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). That said, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent protection for [a] formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection of 5 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection."). If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks and citation omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. In January 2019, the US PTO published revised guidance on the application ofÂ§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) Â§Â§ 2106.05(a)--(c), (e)-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)). 6 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. ANALYSIS Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 19-26: Alice/Mayo Step One Representative independent claim 4 recites a method of imaging a work piece with a visual monitoring, or imaging, system comprising a digital camera, a light emitting diode (LED) light source, and a filter, wherein the work piece is being subjected to an intense light source during a welding operation, where the method comprises the steps recited previously in the Statement of the Case section. A key aspect of the claimed invention is that an LED is selected so that its wavelength band corresponds with one of the wavelength bands of the low intensity light emission regions of the welding process' wavelength signature. As the disclosure explains, Appellants' invention enables visually monitoring objects that are obscured by a high intensity light source, such as plasma,_ flame, or welding arc. Spec. ,r 2. To this end, the specific wavelength signature for an application, such as a welding process, is measured, and this information is used to tailor the associated imaging or monitoring system based on that information. Id. ,r 50. In one 7 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 implementation, spectral regions of low intensity light emission, or "dark regions," are determined that represent potential wavelength regions for a structured lighting-based portion of the visual monitoring or imaging system. Id. , 51. Suitable LEDs are then selected whose wavelengths correspond to these "dark regions" to illuminate the area surrounding the welding arc. Id. , 52. Turning to claim 4, we first note that the claim recites a method and, therefore, falls within the process category ofÂ§ 101. But despite falling within this statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. To this end, we must determine whether the claim ( 1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test. See id. In the rejection, although the Examiner determines that the claimed invention lacks patentable utility (Ans. 3), we nonetheless presume that the Examiner determines that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, given the Examiner's articulated rationale that is at least tied to the Alice/Mayo framework. See Ans. 3-4, 29. In the rejection, the Examiner refers repeatedly to a judicial exception, and determines that the recited limitations do not add significantly more to that exception which, in the context of the rejection, is presumably an abstract idea. See Ans. 3-4 ( determining that the claims do not recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment). That the Examiner analogizes the claimed invention to the 8 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 abstract idea at issue in Smartgene (see Ans. 4, 29) only further bolsters the presumed basis for the Examiner's ineligibility rejection, namely that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, we treat any error associated with the Examiner's "lack of utility" articulation on page 3 of the Answer harmless on this record. Here, despite reciting a digital camera, LED light source,filter, and welding process, all of claim 4 's recited limitations, which collectively are directed to choosing a suitable light source to illuminate dimly lit areas near a workpiece, fit squarely within at least one of the above categories of the USPTO's guidelines. First, determining a wavelength signature of the ... process4 can be done entirely mentally by merely observing visible light emitted by a process, and cognitively comparing that observation to the known wavelengths for visible light, namely from 4000 to 7000 angstroms. See McGRA w-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL TERMS 1136 (5th ed. 1994 Sybil P. Parker ed.) (defining "light" as "[e]lectromagnetic radiation with wavelengths capable of causing the sensation of vision, ranging from 4000 (extreme violet) to 7700 angstroms (extreme red)") ("McGraw-Hill definition"). Cf CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that a recited step that utilized a map of credit card numbers to determine validity of a credit card transaction could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using different credit cards all originated from the 4 Unless otherwise indicated, we italicize or quote text associated with various recited limitations for emphasis and clarity. 9 Appeal 2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 same IP address). Appellants' contention, then, that determining a welding process' wavelength signature is not a mental step (Br. 8) is unavailing, regardless of whether this determination is undertaken in the same manner as in Smartgene. The fact remains that the recited wavelength signature determination can be done entirely mentally because the claim limitation "determining a wavelength signature of the welding process" is broad enough to include observing visible light emitted by the process and comparing the observation to known wavelengths for visible light. Therefore, the recited wavelength signature determination falls squarely within the mental processes category of the USPTO's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observation and evaluation). Second, determining a wavelength band of a plurality of low intensity light emission regions within the wavelength signature of the ... process can also be done entirely mentally by merely observing visible light emitted by the process, including components of that light whose perceived intensity is lower than that of other such components. For example, observed components of visible light at or near the extreme violet wavelength of 4000 angstroms may be perceived as being less intense or darker than brighter visible light components at higher wavelengths. Therefore, the recited wavelength band determination of low-intensity light emission regions within the recited signature falls squarely within the mental processes category of the USPTO's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observation and evaluation). 10 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 Third, determining a wavelength band of each of a plurality of light emitting diodes can also be done entirely mentally by merely reading pertinent records or other associated information about the LEDs' light output, such as from the manufacturers' specifications or other associated technical data. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting that limitation reciting obtaining information about transactions that have used an Internet address identified with a credit card transaction can be performed by a human who simply reads records of Internet credit card transactions from a pre-existing database). The LEDs' wavelength bands can also be determined entirely mentally by merely observing visible light emitted by the LEDs, and cognitively comparing that observation to the known wavelengths for visible light, namely from 4000 to 7000 angstroms. See McGraw-Hill definition ( defining "light" as "[ e ]lectromagnetic radiation with wavelengths capable of causing the sensation of vision, ranging from 4000 ( extreme violet) to 7700 angstroms (extreme red)"). Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting that a recited step that utilized a map of credit card numbers to determine a credit card transaction's validity could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using different credit cards all originated from the same IP address). Therefore, the recited LED wavelength band determination falls squarely within the mental processes category of the USPTO's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observation and evaluation). 11 Appeal 20.18-008452 Application 13/921,300 Fourth, comparing the wavelength bands of the plurality of light emitting diodes with the wavelength bands of the low intensity light emission f regions of the wavelength signature can also be done entirely mentally by merely cognitively comparing the LEDs' wavelengths to those determined for the perceived lower intensity components of the visible light emitted by the welding operation noted previously. Therefore, the recited wavelength band comparison falls squarely within the mental processes category of the USPTO's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, Â· 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observation and evaluation). Fifth, selecting a light emitting diode from the plurality of light emitting diodes so that the wavelength band of the light emitting diode corresponds with one of the wavelength bands of the low intensity light emission regions of the wavelength signatures, wherein the wavelength band of the selected light emitting diode falls entirely within the wavelength signature of the ... process can also be done entirely mentally by merely observing which LED has wavelengths that overlap with those of the perceived lower intensity visible light, and simply choosing that LED over the others. Therefore, the recited LED selection falls squarely within the mental processes category of the USPTO's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observation, evaluation, and judgment). Although the claim recites an abstract idea based on these mental processes, we nevertheless must still determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful 12 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54- 55. To this end, we (1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See id. Here, the recited digital camera, LED light source,filter, and welding process are the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but those additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim 4 as a whole. First, we are not persuaded that the claimed invention improves the associated technology or technical field, but rather merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, namely imaging welding operations. As noted above, when read as a whole, claim 4 is directed to the abstract idea of choosing a suitable light source to illumin~te dimly lit areas near a workpiece. That this light source is chosen in connection with imaging welding operations does not, without more, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, for merely generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use does not render the claim any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accord Flook, 437 U.S. at 584, 588-90, 596-97 (holding ineligible method for updating an alarm limit on a process variable, despite the process involving the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons). See also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP Â§ 2106.05(h)). Although the recited functions may be 13 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 beneficial by choosing a suitable light source to illuminate dimly lit areas near a workpiece in a welding operation, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See id. at 1379-80. Therefore, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 19-26: Alice/Mayo Step Two Turning to Alice/Mayo step two, claim 4's additional recited elements, namely the recited digital camera, LED light source,filter, and welding process--considered individually and as an ordered combination-do not provide an inventive concept such that these additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As noted above, the claimed invention merely chooses a suitable light source to illuminate dimly lit areas near a workpiece in connection with a visual monitoring or imaging system for a welding process with a digital camera, LED light source, and filter- components that are well-understood, routine, and conventional components in the industry. See Spec. ,r,r 3-20 ( discussing known welding monitoring systems); see also Ans. 8-10 (citing Hoertenhuber and Penrod for disclosing these components). Given the claimed invention's high level of generality, the additional recited elements do not add significantly more than the abstract ~dea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two. To the extent Appellants contend otherwise (see Br. 6-8), we disagree. In conclusion, the additional recited elements-considered individually and as an ordered combination-do not add significantly more 14 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 and claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 12-15, and 19-26 not argued separately with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HOERTENHUBER, PENROD, AND ABDULLAH The Examiner finds that Hoertenhuber discloses, among other things, imaging a workpiece during a welding operation, where the imaging system comprises a digital camera, LED light source, and filter. Ans. 8. According to the Examiner, Hoertenhuber not only determines the welding process' wavelength signature, but also selects an LED from plural LEDs. Id. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Hoertenhuber does not select the LED such that its wavelength band corresponds with that of a low intensity light emission region of the welding process' wavelength signature, the Examiner cites Penrod for teaching this feature. Id. 9-I 0. The Examiner also cites Abdullah for teaching that each selected LED's wavelength band falls entirely within the welding process' wavelength signature. Id. 11. In view of these collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 8-11. Appellants argue that Hoertenhuber and Penrod do not disclose illuminating a welding process where an LED is selected based on (1) determining a wavelength band for each low intensity region within a welding process' wavelength signature, and (2) the selected LED's the wavelength band is matched to that of the low intensity light emission 15 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 regions. Br. 9-11. According to Appellants, Hoertenhuber's sensor merely detects light intensity, not frequencies, and therefore cannot assist ordinarily skilled artisans to match an LED's wavelength band with that of low intensity emission regions of the welding process' wavelength signature. Id. Appellants add that Penrod does not determine Â·wavelength bands of the signature's low light emission regions, but rather selects a light source that emits light over a different wavelength range than that of the welding process. Id. 10-11. ISSUE UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 by finding that Hoertenhuber, Penrod, and Abdullah collectively would have taught or suggested selecting an LED such that its wavelength band corresponds with that of a low intensity light emission region of a welding process' wavelength signature? ANALYSIS We begin by noting that the Examiner's reliance on Abdullah for teaching claim 4 's last clause is undisputed, as is the cited references' combinability. Rather, asÂ· noted above, this dispute turns solely on the Examiner's reliance on Hoertenhuber and Penrod for teaching the recited LED selection. Therefore, we confine our discussion to these references. On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection. To be sure, Hoertenhuber's paragraph 41 notes that images are captured in a welding process when an electric arc glows slightly or not at all such that imaging is based on light intensity as Appellants indicate. Br. 16 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 10. Nevertheless, we see no error in the Examiner's additional reliance on Penrod for at least suggesting the recited LED selection. As shown in Penrod's Figure 1, during arc welding, a target 240's images are captured using digital camera 310 with filter 320 that blocks light associated with the arc, yet passes light from an LED-based light emitting component 250. Penrod ,r 21. The filter is selected so that it matches the wavelengths of infrared radiation emitted by the LED, namely from 700 to 1400 nm-a wavelength range that differs from that of the weld light, which is concentrated in the ultraviolet to visible wavelength range from about 380 to 750 nm. Id. This difference avoids "blooming"-an effect where the welding arc light saturates the camera's imaging element. Id. The clear import of this discussion is that wavelengths of imaged emissions differ largely from those of the welding light itself. As a result, the imaged LED's infrared wavelength band essentially corresponds with that of a low infrared intensity emission region of the welding process that is predominantly in the ultraviolet to visible regions-not the infrared region. See Penrod ,r 21. Although there is some overlap between the wavelengths of the LED and the welding light, namely from 700 to 750 nm, their wavelengths are nevertheless otherwise substantially different. See id. Therefore, Penrod at least suggests that the LED's infrared wavelengths correspond with low infrared intensity light emission regions of the welding process' ultraviolet to visible wavelength signature. Notably, nothing in the claim precludes these low infrared emission regions of the welding process despite the 50 nm overlap between those regions and those of the LED. Appellants' contention, then, that Penrod 17 Appeal2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 teaches away from the recited low intensity .wavelength band correlation (Br. 11) is unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Although Penrod at least suggests selecting an LED to emit infrared radiation during a welding process, we nonetheless see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Hoertenhuber and Penrod collectively for at least suggesting the recited LED selection. See Ans. 8-10, 30 (noting that Hoertenhuber was cited for teaching, among other things, selecting an LED from plural LEDs). Therefore, Appellants' arguments regarding Hoertenhuber's and Penrod's individual shortcomings (Br. 9-11) do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, we are not persuaded t]:iat the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4, and claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 19-24 not argued separately with particularity. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 3, 8, 12-15, 25, and 26. Ans. 19-28. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 4, and allege that Taft fails to cure those purported deficiencies. Br. 12. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed. 18 Appeal 2018-008452 Application 13/921,300 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 19-26 underÂ§Â§ 101 and 103. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 19-26. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ l.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 19 Application/Control Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent AppealNo. 2018-008452 Notice of References Cited No. 13/921,300 Examiner Art Unit 2489 Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name CPC Classification US Classification A US- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name CPC Classification N 0 p Q R s T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) u McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms 1136 (5th ed. 1994 Sybil P. Parker ed.) V w X A copy of this reference 1s not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP Â§ 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 20170303 MCGRAW-Hill DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND lECHNICAl TERMS Fifth Edition Sybil P. Parker Editor in Chief McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York San Francisco Washington, D.C. ..._..hod Bogota Caracas Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan Mocu::renl New Delhi San Juan Singapore Sydney Tokyo Toronto On the cover: Photomicrograph of crystals of vitamin B1â€¢ (Dennis Kunkel, University of Hawaii) Included in this Dictionary arc definitions which have been published previously in the following, works: P. B. Jordain, Condensed Cvmp11ter Encyclopedia, Copyright Â© 1969 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. All righc;; reserved. J. Markus. Electronics and N11deo11ics Dictionary, 4th ed .. Copyright Cl 1960, 1966, 1978 by McGraw-Hill. h\L\ All rights reserved. J. Quick, Anist.f' and ll/11.v1ra1ors' F.ncydopedia, CopyrightÂ© 1969 by McGrow-Hi!I, Inc. All rights reserved. 8/akis1011' s Go11/tl Medic"/ Dictionary, 3d ed., Copyright /0 1956, 1972 by McGrnw-Hill, Inc. All rights reserved. T. Baumeister and L. S. Marks. eds .. Swn,/(lrd flandhook for Mecha11ical Â£11_qineer~. 7th ed .. Copyright (C) 1958, 1967 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. All 1igh1s reserved. In addi1ion, material has been drawn from the following references: R. E. Huschkc. Glossary l)j Mi:tmro/Qgy, American Meteorological Socie1y, 1959: U.S. Air Fori:e Glossary of Standardized Terms. AF Mnnual 11-l. ,â€¢ol. I, 1972; Co11111111nica1ions-Elec1ro11ics Termillology, AF Manual I 1-f, vol. 3, 1970; W. H. Allen. ed .. Di,1io11ary o/Ted111ical Terms for Aerospace Use, Isl ed., National Aeronautics and Space. Administration. 1965: J.M. Gilliland, Solur,TerrestriÂ·ch:>r l llght [0PT1cs) 1. Electromagnetic radiation with wa~ .= capable of causing the sensation of vision, rangi111 r:;,-- 0 matelv from 4000 (extreme violet) to 7700 angstrom5 C~-- rcd). Â· Also known as light r.idiation; \'isiblc radiation. :_., â€¢ generally, elec1romagne1ic radiation of any wavelerÂ¢ "'"'II. the rcnn is sometimes applied 10 infrared and ultr:w~ ~ tion. I lit) light absorption [omcs] The process in which e=:-:- , light radiation is transferred 10 11 medium through "';:.:; " passing. I 'lit .ib,sorpÂ·sh:>n I lightâ€¢actlvated slllcon controlled rectifier [Et.Ecn: ~ " icon-controlled rectifier having a glass window for mci=!:::' â€¢ that takes the place of. or adds to the action of, an ~kc::. a curre111 in providing switching action. Abbrcviat.:i! Lâ€¢ Â·Â·. ") Also known as phoro-SCR; pho101hyris1or. I 'lit ;.il~ ... -.. :silÂ·:iâ€¢k;,n k:ln:trOld 'rckÂ·t:i,fi';,r) llght-actlvatedslllconcontrolledswltch [Â£LF.cn1 if.-Â· ' conductor device 1ha1 has four layers of silicon allcn:i:c:::- ...... : with acceptor and donor impurities. but wi1h all fa:!~ *'" , and II layers made accessible by terminals; when 11 !:;;:: ._, ; hits the active ligh1â€¢sensi1ivc surface, the photons gr=:... * . tron-holc pairs Ihm m;1ke the device rum on: remO'll'C, â€¢Â·Â· docs no1 revcrSe the phenomt'non; the switch can l:lC' i:;:-..;. â€¢, onlv by rcmo1â€¢ing or reversing its positive bias. A:i:::::' ~, LASCS. I 'Iii ;nkÂ·t;:i,viidâ€¢;)d ;silÂ·:iÂ·kan k,m:1rOld 's'"'- , light adaptation [l'HYS10) The di~appearuncc of a:: ......, llltion: lllc chemical processes by which the eyes, aflat 10 a dim cnvironmenl, b{'comc accus1omcd 10 brl.Â¢'-~~: lion, which initially is perceived as quite intcnst cl~' fortable. I 'Iii ,ad,ap'ttiÂ·sh.in l . 1 light amplification by stimulated emission of ra=.c::r laser. I 'lit ,amÂ·pl:>Â·f;i'kliÂ·sh;,n bf :s1imÂ·y;,,lildâ€¢;id i!=:.. ..., ,r.ld-e'AÂ·sh:in I light amplifier (ELECTRj 1. Any electronic dell\.::' when actuated by a light image. reproduces a sin=.- enhanced brightness, and which is capable of o~ low light levels without introducing spurious brig.I::._ lions (noise) into the reproduced image. Also knc:PIII:::': intensifier. 2. See laser amplifier. I 'Iii ,amâ€¢pl.>.lr,z:: light anllelrcraft artlllery [ORD) ConvcntioMI. t:' artillery pieces. usually under 90-millimetcr. the- c..:: ,.. which in a trailed mount. including on-carriage lire=- not exceed 20,000 pound5 (9000 kilograms); self-~..-, sions are rated in the same category a~ the trailed~Â· ,antÂ·c'er,kr.ifl lir,tilÂ·aÂ·n? l light artlllery I oKo J A II guns and howitzers of JQS.c caliber (4. 13-inch bore) or smaller. t 'ITI ilr'til-:nt! r light beacon (NAV) A beucon from which a lighti:....: for directing ships. I 'lit ,bi!Â·k.:in I :-ghtÂ·beam galvanometer ~m galvanometer Seed' Arson val gt!lvanome:r '::l!::J ,f31-va'ntimÂ·;,dÂ·:,r ) ~am osclllograph fEu,c-rROMAOJ Ano~ ~ '. t>eam of light, focused to a point by II kns, ~ 1 ;:::u llny mirror ~1tt1ched 1011le moving coil of a~ :=:ti pho1ograph1c film moving at constam , ..... ed. I ..... ~-mf) .... ~m pickup (ENG ACOUS] A phonogr3p& Tl ..:::i::. t b.eam of light is II coupling element of !:ht t:::I . :, .tian 'pik,.ip I ::::l~lng [E~oj Loosening of shallow or sr=.Ot . -=i ::nd breaking boulders by explosives. I 'Cl l:J -=~ber !AERO ENGJ Any bomber with a pi= l t::3 than 100,000 pounds (45,000 kilograms),. a ""= IOf c>.ample. the A-20 and A-26 bomber.; in I\) Â·â€¢ , "El 'bamÂ·:ir I :;::=~ Ste incandescem lamp. I 'lit ,b;,lb I ..;:::,:;e:mer lnjecllon fELECTR] A method ofiutrar:"J ':':::::rm a focsimile$yStem by periodic variation o( I!= ;::i !am, the 11vcrngc amplirude of which is \â€¢.!ri::i ':::::::, t'bangcs of tlrc subject copy. Also known u f.i ~ I 'Irr 'karÂ·!~r inJekâ€¢sh;,n J ~l?Omb [ORD). A typeofgencral-purposetu -~ 1.isht ?1e1al casing and designed 10 accOl'llpSc ..=:: pllllanly. I 'Iii ,klis barn J ,;;; , 1!:n (!MMUNOLJ The~mallerofrhe IWOl\-pe:Jt :::::1& 11:tlmunoglobulin molecules, molecular.;~ ~n as B chain; L chain. I 'ITt 'chan l ~:;.:cppe, [ELECTR) A rotating fan or other C!ll .:::r.:::s.:u 10 int7rrupt a light beam that is aimed:u a Â¢s :::= ..i.!1emat111g-currcnt amplification of the phol:::J ~ciakc its output independent of strong. ~tcaey :::=i:,;,n. I 'Iii 'chllpÂ·ar I Â«Â· -,ui Su illumination climate. f 'lit ,krrm.is ~ ~ \Rel.A 1Â·J The se1 of all poin1s in ~pa.:-e-d:::J .. ':=joy ,1gn~l~ tr.i~elingat tlte speed oflight fro::uu . .::,,Pf:om which signals traveling at the ,peed oft:J "';'::::L Also known as null cone. f 'lit ,koo t r ...::=:.ca !~ETRO ENG} Crude oil having a high ro ~-,ry, low-molecular-weight hydrocarboc:s .. ' 1111'.' ~ (NAV ARCH) A navul vessel who.5