Melissa Ann. Seely et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2020

14847913 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2020)

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.
14/847,913 09/08/2015 Melissa Ann Seely 281976 (17851-1123) 6756
45364 7590 03/02/2020
PATENT DOCKET DEPARTMENT (17851)
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
MESSMORE, JONATHAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2020 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):
uspatents@armstrongteasdale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte MELISSA ANN SEELY and
WILLIAM FORRESTER SEELY 1
_____________

Appeal 2019-000697
Application 14/847,913
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jurisdiction.
Claims 1, 4–11, and 14–20, are pending, stand rejected, are appealed
(Appeal Br. 1), and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicants” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies General Electric Company,
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000697
Application 14/847,913
2

RELATED APPEALS AND TRIALS
Appellant declares there are no related appeals. Appeal Br. 1.
INVENTION
Summary of the Invention.
The invention is directed to an “imaging and analysis system for a
component of a rotary machine.” Abstract.
Claims.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below with
formatting added for clarity:
1. An imaging and analysis system for a component of a
rotary machine, said system comprising:
an image capture device operable to capture image data from at
least one selected type of electromagnetic radiation that is at
least one of reflected from and transmitted through the
component;
a mounting rig comprising a rotatable component mounting
system and a datum coupled to said rotatable component
mounting system, wherein the rotatable component mounting
system is configured to rotate such that the component is
successively presented in a plurality of preselected orientations
relative to the image capture device, and the datum is
correspondingly presented in each of a plurality of positions
associated with the plurality of preselected orientations;
an image processor configured to generate processed data from
the captured image data at each of the plurality of preselected
orientations, said processed data based in part on a known size
of the datum and a known one of the plurality of positions of
the datum in each of the captured images; and
a control system configured to automatically identify a
condition of the component by comparing the processed data to
Appeal 2019-000697
Application 14/847,913
3

stored reference data, wherein the reference data is stored in a
format that enables direct comparison to the processed data.

REJECTIONS2 AT ISSUE3
References.
Name Publication Number Date
Grote US 2010/0141756 A1 June 10, 2010
Derrien US 2011/0298901 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
Husmann US 2013/0119256 A1 May 16, 2013
Pangrazio US 2016/0061591 A1 Mar. 3, 2016, filed
Aug. 28, 2015
Smith US 2016/0309083 A1 Oct. 20, 2016, filed
Apr. 17, 2015

Rejections.
1. Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pangrazio, Grote, and Smith. Final Act. 2–7.
2. Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pangrazio, Grote, Smith, and Derrien. Final Act.
7–8.

2 The Application is being examined under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”)
filed June 8, 2018, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 2, 2018,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed October 31, 2017, the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 6, 2018, and the
Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 8, 2015.
Appeal 2019-000697
Application 14/847,913
4

3. Claims 7–10 and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pangrazio, Grote, Smith, and Husmann. Final Act.
8–11.
ANALYSIS
Overview.
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1, 4–11, and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

CLAIMS 1, 4–11, AND 14–20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER PANGRAZIO, GROTE, AND
SMITH, AND VARIOUS SECONDARY REFERENCES.
Appellant argues all claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. See Appeal Br. 42. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 103
rejections on the basis of illustrative Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims
collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant contends the combination of Pangrazio, Grote, and Smith
fails to teach each element of the claims and for the additional reason that
the Record fails to suggest a motivation to combine the references. Appeal
Br. 5.
Rotating a rotatable component mounting system.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
a mounting rig comprising a rotatable component mounting
system and a datum coupled to said rotatable component
mounting system, wherein the rotatable component mounting
system is configured to rotate such that the component is
Appeal 2019-000697
Application 14/847,913
5

successively presented in a plurality of preselected orientations
relative to the image capture device.
The Examiner finds Pangrazio teaches a mounting rig comprising a rotatable
component mounting system. Final Act. 3 (citing Pangrazio, ¶ 6). The
Examiner further finds Pangrazio teaches wherein the rotatable component
mounting system is configured to rotate such that the component is
successively presented in a plurality of preselected orientations relative to
the image capture device. Id. (citing Pangrazio, ¶ 8—explaining Pangrazio
teaches a mechanism that moves the load past the time-of-flight devices at a
fixed velocity and a specific orientation with respect to the time-of-flight
devices).
Appellant contends Pangrazio fails to teach the claimed “plurality of
preselected locations.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues rather, Pangrazio
teaches a dimensioning apparatus, including a camera, which has been pre-
calibrated using a calibration fiducial marker (found by the Examiner to
teach the claimed “datum,” Final Act. 3) placed at a plurality of random
orientations within the calibration apparatus. Id. Appellant explains that
after the apparatus is calibrated, a load to be calibrated is driven into the
apparatus from any random direction. The load has a mast fiducial (found
by the Examiner to teach the claimed “component,” Final Act. 3), identical
to the calibration fiducial which allows the camera to dimension the load by
comparison against calibration photographs. Id. 6–7. Appellant argues
[b]ecause the alleged component of Pangrazio [mast fiducial]
and the alleged datum [calibration fiducial] of Pangrazio are
never in the view of the camera at the same time, it is
indisputable that Pangrazio fails to describe the claim recitation
“the component is successively presented in a plurality of
preselected orientations relative to the image capture device,
and the datum is correspondingly presented in each of a
Appeal 2019-000697
Application 14/847,913
6

plurality of positions associated with the plurality of preselected
orientations.”
Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds Pangrazio discloses an embodiment wherein a
load is moved past a time-of-flight device at a fixed velocity and which
require “the loads to be in a specific orientation with respect to the time-of-
flight device.” Ans. 14–15 (citing Pangrazio, ¶ 8).
Appellant makes two contentions with regard to this aspect of the
Examiner’s Answer. First, Appellant contends the cited embodiment relates
to the prior art and not to Pangrazio’s invention. Reply Br. 1 (citing
Pangrazio, ¶ 8) (“[s]ome previous stationary dimensioning apparatus have
employed time-of-flight devices”). Second, Appellant contends Pangrazio
explicitly criticizes these prior art embodiments. Id. (citing Pangrazio, ¶ 8,
emphasis omitted) (“Some previously known dimensioning apparatuses have
additionally required the various loads to be in a specific orientation with
respect to the time-of-flight devices. These requirements have limited the
effectiveness and usefulness of such known types of fixed dimensioning
apparatuses. Improvements thus would be desirable.”).
Appellant contends the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s
Answer fail to cite any incentive to combine the separate prior art system of
paragraph 8 “with the numerous other portions of Pangrazio’s own system
that were cited to reject other recitations of Appellant’s claims, much less
any incentive to combine the system of paragraph [0008] with the Grote and
Smith references.” Reply Br. 2. Moreover, Appellant argues Pangrazio
expressly criticizes prior art systems that require presentation in a fixed
orientation. Therefore, because the claimed invention also requires the
component to be in a specific orientation, Pangrazio would ‘“deter any
Appeal 2019-000697
Application 14/847,913
7

investigation into . . . a combination’ that results in Appellant’s claimed
invention.” Id. 2–3 (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor
Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting U. S. v. Adams,
383 U.S. 39, 52 (1966)). Appellant argues “[s]uch a teaching away confirms
the nonobviousness of Appellant’s claims. Id. (quoting DePuy Spine, at
1326).
As specifically disclosed by Pangrazio, any embodiment that would
require “loads to be in a specific orientation with respect to the time-of-flight
devices,” such as the claimed invention, would render Pangrazio unfit for its
intended purpose. “Such a teaching away confirms the nonobviousness of
Appellant’s claims. Reply Br. 2 (quoting DePuy Spine, at 1326). The
concept of teaching away is based on the well-reasoned principle that when
“prior art teaches away from combining certain known elements, discovery
of a successful means of combining them is more likely to be nonobvious.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Independent Claim 11 contains commensurate recitations. In view of
the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 4–11, and 14–
20.

Appeal 2019-000697
Application 14/847,913
8

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 11,
15, 16
103 Pangrazio, Grote,
Smith
1, 5, 6, 11,
15, 16
4, 14 103 Pangrazio, Grote,
Smith, Derrien
4, 14
7–10, 17–
20
103 Pangrazio, Grote,
Smith, Husmann
7–10, 17–
20
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–11,
14–20

REVERSED