Robert Hydro

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2021

2020005811 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 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.
15/680,189 08/17/2017 Robert Hydro Hydro-1 8839
32132 7590 05/27/2021
LAMORTE & ASSOCIATES P.C.
P.O. BOX 434
YARDLEY, PA 19067
EXAMINER
BROWNE, SCOTT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2021 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):
mail@uspatlaw.com
malamorte@verizon.net
uspatlaw1@verizon.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT HYDRO

Appeal 2020-005811
Application 15/680,189
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1–20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies himself as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005811
Application 15/680,189

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
Appellant’s disclosure “relates to inspection systems for roller
coasters and other amusement park rides that run on tracks.” Spec. 1:8–10.
In that regard, and of particular relevance, is Appellant’s use of “360 degree
imaging . . . accomplished by using multiple cameras 42 in the unimpeded
areas 30 that are focused onto the rails 16 at opposing angles.” Id. at 10:12–
14 (referring to Fig. 3).
The Claims
Claims 1–20 are rejected. Final Act. 1. Claims 1, 11, and 17 are the
independent claims on appeal. Appeal Br. 17–22. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below.
1. An inspection system for the track of an
amusement ride, wherein said amusement ride has a support
framework that supports a rail, and wherein said support
framework creates obstructed areas and unobstructed areas
proximate said rail along said track, said inspection system
comprising:
a vehicle that rides along said track; and
a plurality of cameras supported by said vehicle in said
unobstructed areas, wherein said plurality of cameras are
focused on said rail from different angles to image 360 degrees
around said rail as said vehicle rides along said track.
Appeal Br. 17.
Appeal 2020-005811
Application 15/680,189

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
The following rejections, all under 35 U.S.C. § 103, are before us:
(1) claims 1, 2, and 4–10 as unpatentable over Verl2 and
Lykkegaard3 (Final Act. 2);
(2) claim 3 as unpatentable over Verl, Lykkegaard, and Simpson4
(id. at 4); and
(3) claims 11–20 as unpatentable over Verl, Lykkegaard, and
Magnus5 (id. at 5).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
Appellant argues against the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–10
together. Accordingly, we choose claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner concluded that the subject matter of claim 1 would
have been obvious over Verl and Lykkegaard. Final Act. 2–3. In support of
that conclusion, the Examiner found that Verl discloses all of the subject
matter of claim 1 except that it discloses only a single camera as opposed to
a plurality of cameras. Id. (citing Verl ¶¶10, 12, 15, Fig. 2); see also Ans. 3
(citing Verl ¶8: “The testing device is provided for checking or testing
tracks (rails) 1 of roller coasters and comprises a carriage 2 movable on
wheels 3 on the tracks 1.”), 4 (“Verl sets forth all of the subject matter of
claim 1 except an explicit teaching of using a plurality of cameras, instead of

2 US 2007/0227274 A1, published Oct. 4, 2007 (“Verl”).
3 US 9,022,198 B2, issued May 5, 2015 (“Lykkegaard”).
4 US 6,992,695 B1, issued Jan. 31, 2006 (“Simpson”).
5 US 7,659,972 B2, issued Feb. 9, 2010 (“Magnus”).
Appeal 2020-005811
Application 15/680,189

4
just one, to conduct the inspection.”). The Examiner found, however, that
Lykkegaard discloses “an inspection device for a track that has a multitude
of cameras (i.e. the one or more cameras may be disposed on the front, rear,
left, right, top, bottom of the device with opposing directions of detection).”
Final Act. 3 (citing Lykkegaard 6:60–64). The Examiner determined “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate
multiple cameras onto the inspection robot of Verl with the motivation of
performing multiple recording tasks simultaneously therein increasing the
efficiency of the examination.” Id.
Appellant argues “the Examiner misrepresents the disclosure [of
Lykkegaard] by implying that the cameras are used to inspect the track.
This is not true. The cameras are used to perform service tasks, such as
finding bags that have fallen off of the material handling system.” Appeal
Br. 7 (citing Lykkegaard 6:54–66). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument. Although Lykkegaard’s cameras are not described as being used
for inspecting a track’s rails specifically, they are described as being used for
inspecting various aspects of a track in order to provide service thereto. See,
e.g., Lykkegaard 15:26–29 (“The illustrated device furthermore includes a
number of cameras, for detection of service tasks on or adjacent to the track
of the material handling system.”), 6:64–67 (“The cameras may as an
example be used to detect dust or other objects at positions where no objects
or less dust used to be, or to detect objects in a condition or position which
needs servicing.”).
Appellant also argues that Lykkegaard’s multiple cameras are not
oriented in a manner that could obtain a 360 degree view of a rail as the
system rides along the track. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Lykkegaard 15:26–49).
Appeal 2020-005811
Application 15/680,189

5
This argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner. As the Examiner repeatedly points out (Final Act. 2; Ans. 3), the
primary reference—Verl—explicitly teaches the use of a camera that “can
reach any location on, adjacent to, and underneath the track or rail in order
to carry out examinations.” Verl ¶12. This is so, the Examiner finds,
because Verl’s camera is disposed at the end of an assembly of linked arms
that extend, rotate, and pivot in various directions. Final Act. 2 (citing Verl
Fig. 2); see also Ans. 3 (citing Verl ¶12, which provides: “By means of the
axes Al to A7, the respective sensor [e.g. camera] can reach any location on,
adjacent to, and underneath the track or rail in order to carry out
examinations.”). Lykkegaard is cited merely for its teaching of using
multiple cameras in an inspection device for a track. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4.
But Lykkegaard must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches
in combination with Verl. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (“[The reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.”). Appellant’s
argument reads Lykkegaard in isolation and, thus, does not apprise us of
error.
Similarly, Appellant argues that “[n]either the Verl Publication nor the
Lykkegaard Patent disclose any system that views a track with different
angled cameras to obtain a 360 degree inspection of the rail.” Appeal Br. 8.
However, it is the Examiner’s proposed modification of Verl in view
Lykkegaard that meets claim 1’s recitation that “a plurality of cameras
supported . . . focused on said rail from different angles to image 360
degrees around said rail as said vehicle rides along said track.” Final Act. 2–
3; see Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097 (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by
Appeal 2020-005811
Application 15/680,189

6
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.”).
Appellant ultimately acknowledges that the Examiner’s rejection is
based on the combined teachings of Verl and Lykkegaard and asserts the
Examiner’s rejection lacks “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning.” Appeal Br. 9 (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006))). This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner articulated the
following reasoning: “to incorporate multiple cameras onto the inspection
robot of Verl with the motivation of performing multiple recording tasks
simultaneously therein increasing the efficiency of the examination.” Final
Act. 3. We find this reasoning sufficient in view of the very purpose of Verl
to monitor the tracks/rails of roller coasters. See, e.g., Verl ¶2 (“It is known
that tracks or rails of roller coasters must be continuously monitored and
checked for safety reasons.”), ¶8 (“The testing device is provided for
checking or testing tracks (rails) 1 of roller coasters . . . .”).
Appellant asserts that the proposed modification of Verl in view of
Lykkegaard “certainly would require a substantial reconstruction or
redesign.” Appeal Br. 9. This assertion is conclusory and, thus, fails to
establish that a person of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable
expectation of success in adding cameras to Verl in such a manner that they
are “focused on said rail from different angles to image 360 degrees around
said rail as said vehicle rides along said track,” as recited in claim 1. See
Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers
Appeal 2020-005811
Application 15/680,189

7
to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations
of the claimed invention.”).
Appellant asserts that the proposed modification “would also require a
change in the basic principle under which the Verl Publication was designed
to operate.” Appeal Br. 9. This assertion is likewise conclusory. In fact,
Appellant does not identify the purported principle of operation of Verl that
would require changing. Id. Appellant’s entire explanation is that “[a]
robotic arm that holds a camera is not equivalent to multiple cameras that
view a rail from different positions to provide 360 degree image coverage of
a rail.” Id. Appellant, however, does not explain why the non-equivalence
of those two components is somehow definitive in the obviousness inquiry.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments but they fail to apprise us
of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claim 1, as well as that of claims 2 and 4–10, which fall therewith. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Rejection 2
Appellant does not argue against this rejection of dependent claim 3
as obvious over Verl, Lykkegaard, and Simpson. Appeal Br. 4 (listing the
grounds of rejection to be review on appeal and omitting the rejection of
claim 3). Accordingly, Appellant has not apprised us of error, and we
summarily affirm the rejection of claim 3.
Rejection 3
Appellant appeals the rejection of claims 11–20 based on arguments
presented for each of independent claims 11 and 17. Appeal Br. 11–13
(regarding claim 11), 13–16 (regarding claim 17). Accordingly, we choose
claim 11 as representative of claims 11–16 and claim 17 as representative of
Appeal 2020-005811
Application 15/680,189

8
claims 17–20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). That said, we discuss
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 11 and 17 together. Appellant’s
arguments regarding claims 11 and 17, although presented under separate
subheadings, merely reiterate Appellant’s claim 1 arguments coupled with
assertions that the tertiary reference, Magnus, fails to cure the alleged
deficiencies regarding the subject matter of claims 11 and 17 that is common
to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11 (arguing with respect to claim 11: “The
Examiner adds the Magnus Patent to the combination. . . . However, the
Magnus Patent does not image the rails from a 360 degree prospectus. Nor
does it suggest such a use.”), 14 (same but with respect to claim 17).
Appellant’s arguments fail to apprise us of error in the rejection of
claims 11 and 17. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 11 and 17,
as well as that of claims 12–16 and 18–20, which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–10 103 Verl, Lykkegaard 1, 2, 4–10
3 103 Verl, Lykkegaard,
Simpson
3
11–20 103 Verl, Lykkegaard,
Magnus
11–20
Overall
outcome
1–20

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) (2019).
Appeal 2020-005811
Application 15/680,189

9
AFFIRMED