SICK AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 9, 2022

2021001803 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2022)

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. 15/259,241 09/08/2016 Bernd ROTHENBERGER 34762U 5254 20529 7590 02/09/2022 NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER Joshua Goldberg 112 South West Street Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER HAGOS, EYOB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2864 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2022 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): USPTO@nathlaw.com jgoldberg@nathlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte BERND ROTHENBERGER, JONAS RIST, and MANFRED HABERER __________ Appeal 2021-001803 Application 15/259,241 Technology Center 2800 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-4 and 7-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SICK AG. Appeal Brief dated July 22, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), at 3. Appeal 2021-001803 Application 15/259,241 2 Claims 1, 18, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized. 1. A method of setting a plurality of part regions of a desired protected zone, in which a) positions of a plurality of monitoring units are detected, wherein each of the plurality of monitoring units detects a detection zone; b) a maximum size of each detection zone is determined; c) the desired protected zone is fixed in a graphical user interface; d) the part regions to be monitored by the respective plurality of monitoring units are fixed with reference to the positions of the plurality of monitoring units, to the maximum size of the detection zones and to the desired protected zone; and e) the part regions are assigned to a respective one of the plurality of monitoring units, wherein the part regions are fixed at least in part for overlap regions of the protected zone which are monitorable by a plurality of monitoring units such that, in at least a portion of the overlap regions, only exactly that respective monitoring unit monitors the overlap region which is closest to the respective overlap region. Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal: (1) claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Drinkard2 in view of Heigl3 and Jenkins;4 and 2 US 2012/0123563 A1, published May 17, 2012 (“Drinkard”). 3 US 2010/0194859 A1, published August 5, 2010 (“Heigl”). 4 US 2008/0165266 A1, published July 10, 2008 (“Jenkins”). Appeal 2021-001803 Application 15/259,241 3 (2) claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Drinkard in view of Heigl and Jenkins, further in view of Mezger.5 B. DISCUSSION Claim 1 recites that “in at least a portion of the overlap regions, only exactly that respective monitoring unit monitors the overlap region which is closest to the respective overlap region.” Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis added). We interpret the phrase “in at least a portion of the overlap regions” to mean at least one of the overlap regions of the protected zone that are monitorable by a plurality of monitoring units. Thus, we interpret claim 1 as reciting that in at least one of the overlap regions, only one monitoring unit monitors the overlap region and that monitoring unit is the monitoring unit closest to the overlap region. See Spec. 5 (disclosing that the monitoring unit which is closest to the respective overlap region has the smallest spacing from the monitored zone). Similarly, independent claims 18 and 20 recite that “for overlapping regions of the protected zone for which a plurality of the monitoring units have a capability of monitoring, fixing the regions at least in part such that only one of the monitoring units monitors the respective overlap region.” Appeal Br. 20, 21 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that only one camera (i.e., camera 435) monitors the overlap region in Jenkins.6 Final Act. 11; see also Final Act. 4-5.7 The Appellant, 5 US 2012/0274466 A1, published November 1, 2012 (“Mezger”). 6 In Heigl, cameras or monitoring units 2a and 2b both monitor the overlap region. See Heigl ¶ 36; Heigl Fig. 1. Similarly, in Drinkard, sensors 12-1 and 12-2 both monitor the overlap region. See Drinkard ¶ 21; Drinkard Fig. 1. 7 Final Office Action dated January 31, 2020. Appeal 2021-001803 Application 15/259,241 4 on the other hand, argues that three separate cameras 431, 432, and 435 monitor the overlap region in Jenkins. Appeal Br. 13. The Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible error. Jenkins Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates an interactive display showing two cameras and a single illuminator. Jenkins ¶ 8. Jenkins Figure 1 is a side-view of an interactive display 100 in accordance with one embodiment of Jenkins’ invention. Five rays of illumination light 121, 122, 123, 124, and 125 are emitted from illuminator 120. Jenkins ¶ 19. Camera 131 receives light within range 151, including ray 122 which represents only specular reflection. Jenkins ¶ 19. Similarly, camera 132 receives light within range 152, including ray 124 which represents only specular reflection. Jenkins ¶ 20. Jenkins discloses: [T]he area of specular reflection for camera 131 is different than the area of specular reflection for camera 132. That is to say, objects that are more difficult to image by camera 131 due to specular reflection, may be more easily imaged by camera 132. In addition, objects that are more difficult to image by camera 132 due to specular reflection, may be more easily imaged by camera 131. Jenkins ¶ 20. Appeal 2021-001803 Application 15/259,241 5 Jenkins Figure 2A, reproduced below, shows a representation of first image 200A received by camera 131, and Jenkins Figure 2B, reproduced below, shows a representation of image 200B received by camera 132. Jenkins ¶ 21. Jenkins Figures 2A and 2B are representations of images captured by the first and second cameras, respectively, illustrated in Jenkins Figure 1. Jenkins discloses: [R]egion 2 of image 200A in FIG. 2A does not contain any specular reflection, but images the same area of the display screen as region 4 of image 200B in FIG. 2B, which does contain a specular reflection. Meanwhile, region 3 of image 200B in FIG. 2B does not contain any specular reflection, but images the same area of the display screen as region 1 of image 200A in FIG. 2A, which does contain a specular reflection. Jenkins ¶ 21. Jenkins discloses that an image merging operation illustrated in Jenkins Figure 1 combines the images from the two cameras. Jenkins ¶ 22. For example, “the entire first image 200A is taken except for region 1 containing the specular reflection. As for image 200B, only region 3 is taken. Region 1 of image 200A may then be replaced by region 3 of image 200B to generate a merged image having no specular reflections.” Jenkins ¶ 23. Appeal 2021-001803 Application 15/259,241 6 Jenkins Figure 4 shows a top view of a five camera system 400 operating with a single illuminator. Jenkins ¶ 26. Jenkins Figure 4 illustrates a top view of a five camera embodiment of the interactive display of Jenkins Figure 1. Similar to the embodiment illustrated in Jenkins Figure 1, Jenkins discloses that cameras 431 and 432 are positioned such that they each capture specular reflection caused by illuminator 420. Jenkins ¶ 26. Jenkins discloses: Camera 435 (also called herein an “overlapping camera”) is positioned to capture without specular reflection the areas of cameras 431 and 432 that have specular reflection. Accordingly, the final image may be free of specular reflection by merging all four images from cameras 431 through 434, and by replacing the specular reflection areas with image portions captured by camera 435. Jenkins ¶ 26 (emphasis added). Consistent with the Appellant’s arguments, we find that Jenkins discloses that three cameras (i.e., cameras 431, 432, and 435), not one as recited in claims 1, 18, and 20, monitor the same overlap region. The Examiner does not explain, in any detail, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have eliminated two of those Appeal 2021-001803 Application 15/259,241 7 three cameras in Jenkins’ interactive display based on the teachings of the prior art of record. Therefore, the obviousness rejections on appeal are not sustained. C. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 7-22 103(a) Drinkard, Heigl, Jenkins 1, 3, 4, 7-22 2 103(a) Drinkard, Heigl, Jenkins, Mezger 2 Overall Outcome 1-4, 7-22 REVERSED