Robert HydroDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 27, 20212020005811 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation