Quality Vision International, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2019006492 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
15/164,955 05/26/2016 Edward Tarry Polidor 91604.000324 5383
23387 7590 03/02/2021
IP Practice Group
Harter Secrest & Emery LLP
1600 Bausch & Lomb Place
Rochester, NY 14604-2711
EXAMINER
HILAIRE, CLIFFORD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 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):
patent@hselaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD TARRY POLIDOR,
JEFFREY BLOOD, and DANIEL C. ABBAS
Appeal 2019-006492
Application 15/164,955
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15 and 17–24. Appeal Br. 1. Claim 16
has been withdrawn from consideration. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Quality Vision
International Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006492
Application 15/164,955

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claimed subject matter is directed to “3D scanning methods,”
using “at least two different but complementary 3D scanning techniques . . .
. yielding more accurate, complete 3D point clouds of scanned 3D objects,
such as machined parts.” Spec. ¶ 21. Claims 1–15 and 17–24 are pending
and rejected; claim 16 is withdrawn. See Appeal Br. 12–16. Independent
claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
(a) scanning surfaces of a three-dimensional object with a
first sensor to acquire first data points representative of surfaces
that have been scanned with the first sensor, and adding the first
data points to a three-dimensional coordinate point cloud;
(b) scanning surfaces of the three-dimensional object with
a second sensor to acquire second data points representative of
surfaces that have been scanned with the second sensor, and
adding the second data points to the three-dimensional
coordinate point cloud;
(c) wherein the first sensor has a lower accuracy and a
faster data point acquisition rate than the second sensor, and the
second data points are assigned a higher weighting than a
weighting assigned to the first data points; and
(d) basing the three-dimensional coordinate point cloud on
weighted first and second data points.
Appeal 2019-006492
Application 15/164,955

3
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Mueller US 2003/0071194 A1 Apr. 17, 2003
Suliga US 2008/0101678 A1 May 1, 2008
Wang et al., High Resolution Acquisition, Learning and Transfer of
Dynamic 3-D Facial Expressions, 2004 (“Wang”).
Chekhlov et al., Real-Time and Robust Monocular SLAM Using Predictive
Multi-resolution Descriptors, 2006 (“Chekhlov”).
Bickel et al., Multi-Scale Capture of Facial Geometry and Motion, July
2007 (“Bickel”).

Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang. Final Act. 9.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wang in view of Bickel. Final Act. 15.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wang in view of Suliga. Final Act. 17.
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wang in view of Mueller. Final Act. 18.
Claims 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wang in view of Chekhlov. Final Act. 19.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error because Wang
does not disclose “scanning surfaces with first and second sensors” as
claimed. Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). Particularly, Appellant contends
“Wang uses . . . high and low resolution meshes to track differences between
. . . separate point clouds, not to acquire first and second data points obtained
Appeal 2019-006492
Application 15/164,955

4
with first and second sensors having different accuracy and data point
acquisition rates.” Id. (emphasis added).
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. Claim 1 recites scanning an
object using a “first sensor [that] has a lower accuracy and a faster data point
acquisition rate than the second sensor.” The Examiner finds this limitation
disclosed by Wang’s descriptions of a “3D shape being constructed from
data coming [from] both cameras” and “scanning of [a] surface into a point
cloud for tracking facial motion” (Ans. 18), because Wang’s “scans applied
to a face model must occur before the tracking and the different scan
captures data-points for an 8K and 1K mesh” (Advisory Act. 2). See Wang
Fig. 3. We agree with Appellant that these findings are insufficient to
support a rejection under anticipation. See Appeal Br. 4 (“the use of two
different cameras in Wang in the 3-D shape acquisition system used to
acquire data . . . is irrelevant to the cited high and low resolution face model
meshes relied upon in the rejection”).
Wang discloses scanning an object using two sensors: a black and
white camera and a color camera. See Wang 679, paragraph 5.2 Wang also
discloses creating models from the scanned content, including a coarse level
“mesh with 1K nodes” and a finer “mesh with 8K nodes.” Wang 678,
paragraphs 3–5. Although the Examiner maps these meshes (having
differing resolutions) to the claimed difference in accuracies, the Examiner
has not explained how the mesh resolutions relate to accuracies of any
sensors, such as Wang’s cameras. See Final Act. 15, 16; Advisory Act. 2;
Ans. 17–20. Nor do we see, on the record before us, any disclosure in Wang

2 We refer to the paragraphs as numbered by the Examiner.
Appeal 2019-006492
Application 15/164,955

5
corresponding to the claimed sensor accuracies. We agree with Appellant
that processing a scanned image with different resolution meshes, as
performed in Wang, is not tantamount to using sensors having different
accuracies. See Appeal Br. 5.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the cited
art discloses all limitations of independent claim 1 or the similar limitations
of claim 17. See Appeal Br. 17. We do not sustain the rejection of these
claims, or the rejections of the claims dependent thereon.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 6, 7,
9, 12, 13,
14, 17, 18,
21, 22
102(a)(1) Wang 1, 2, 5, 6, 7,
9, 12, 13,
14, 17, 18,
21, 22
3, 4, 11, 19,
20
103 Wang, Bickel 3, 4, 11, 19,
20
8 103 Wang, Suliga 8
10, 23 103 Wang, Mueller 10, 23
15, 24 103 Wang, Chekhlov 15, 24
Overall
Outcome
1-15, 17-24

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
REVERSED