Ex Parte Bendall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2017

13156598 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017)

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.
13/156,598 06/09/2011 Clark Alexander Bendall 248483/GEMC-0039) 5421
107256 7590
GE Oil & Gas
Fletcher Yoder PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
KWAN, MATTHEW K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLARK ALEXANDER BEND ALL
and DANIEL HJ McCLUNG
Appeal 2016-000853
Application 13/156,59s1
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-000853
Application 13/156,598
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.3
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a system and methods for providing a
signal reflective of the predicted accuracy of a distance measurement that
may be obtained from one or more images of the object. Spec. 11. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a camera, wherein the camera is configured to be
positioned at a location, and the camera is configured to generate
at least one signal when at the location based at least in part on
an exposure setting of the camera or a gain setting of the camera;
a controller operably connected to the camera, wherein the
controller is configured to receive the at least one signal and the
controller is configured to generate an accuracy signal based on
the at least one signal prior to capturing one or more images of
an object by the camera, wherein the accuracy signal is reflective
of a predicted accuracy of a distance measurement between a
first point of the object and a second point of the object4, and the
distance measurement may be obtained from the one or more
images of the object captured by the camera at the location; and
2 Claim 5 was cancelled and is thus not before us on appeal. (App. Br. 14.)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed June 9, 2011 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Oct. 30, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Mar. 30, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug. 26,
2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Oct. 26, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
4 The Examiner and Appellants are advised to consider whether this
limitation has support in the Specification for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs.
2
Appeal 2016-000853
Application 13/156,598
an indicator operably connected to the controller, wherein
the indicator is configured to provide an indication reflective of
the accuracy signal.
App. Br. 14.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 6—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Pilu (US 2005/0030387 Al, Feb. 10, 2005), Bamji (US
2006/0197937 Al, Sept. 7, 2006), and Schaack (US 6,009,189, Dec. 28,
1999). (Final Act. 2-10.)
Claims 4 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Pilu, Bamji, Schaack, and Yamazaki (US 2008/0204566 Al, Aug. 28, 2008).
(Final Act. 11.)
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Pilu,
Bamji, Schaack, and Bendall (US 7,170,677 Bl, Jan. 30, 2007). (Final Act.
12.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3, 6—18, and 20
Appellants note that claim 1 recites “wherein the accuracy signal is
reflective of a predicted accuracy of a distance measurement between a first
point of the object and a second point of the object.'1'’ (App. Br. 7—11; Reply
Br. 2—5 (emphasis added).) Appellants further state that independent claims
7 and 15 recite similar limitations. Appellants contend that the combination
of Pilu, Bamji, and Schaack fails to disclose these limitations of claims 1, 7,
and 15.
3
Appeal 2016-000853
Application 13/156,598
Specifically, Appellants contend that Pilu is directed to predictions
that are related to user interests. {Id. citing Pilu 123.) Appellants contend
Pilu’s user interests have no connection to the predicted accuracy of any
kind of measurement, much less a predicted accuracy of a distance
measurement between points of an object, as claimed.
Appellants also note that the Examiner acknowledges that Pilu does
not explicitly disclose generating an accuracy signal for a distance
measurement. (App. Br. 8 citing Final Act. 3.) Accordingly, the Examiner
relies on Bamji to teach an accuracy signal of a distance measurement. {Id.)
However, Appellants argue, Bamji merely discloses a system that quantifies
accuracy of Z depth distance data from previously acquired frames. {Id.
citing Bamji || 2, 22, 38, 39, 60, 63, Fig. 4B.)
Appellants state the Examiner appears to rely on Schaack to teach a
distance between two points on an object. (App. Br. 9—10 citing Final Act.
4.) Appellants state that Schaack is directed to calculating distance
measurements between two points in space using the Pythagorean formula.
{Id. citing Schaack 57:28—34.) Appellants contend Schaack’s distance
measurements are based on two images acquired with one or more cameras.
Schaack Abstract. Thus, Appellants assert, Schaack teaches calculation of a
distance where coordinates are known, and not predicted.
Accordingly, Appellants conclude that the combination of Pilu,
Bamji, and Schaack fails to teach or suggest a predicted accuracy of a
distance measurement between a first point and a second point on an object,
as recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 15, and their dependent claims.
4
Appeal 2016-000853
Application 13/156,598
We agree with Appellants’ argument. Basically, the Examiner has
pieced together the prior art by parsing the claim language as follows:
a predicted accuracy (Pilu 112) of a distance measurement (Bamji 141)
between a first point of the object and a second point of the object (Schaack
57:29-33). (Ans. 12—15.) However, in Pilu, the predicted accuracy relates
to user interests determined from control parameters or settings of the
camera, not a distance measurement. It is not apparent to us how one of
ordinary skill in the art, considering Pilu’s teaching concerning predicted
accuracy of user interests, would seek combination with Bamji, which states
that “[ajccuracy positional error is the difference between the real
coordinates of a target object. . . and a somewhat massively time averaged
reading for [a] photodetector pixel.” (Bamji 141.) Bamji’s difference is not
between two points on an object as claimed. We further do not apprehend
how one of ordinary skill in the art would combine this teaching with the
Pythagorean formula mentioned in Schaack for determining the distance
between two points in space. In sum, “it is impermissible within the
framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so
much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts
necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to
one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA
1965).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner relies on the confidence level
of Pilu to teach generating an accuracy signal based on the at least one signal
prior to capturing one or more images, as recited in claims 1, 7, and 15.
(App. Br. 10—11 citing Final Act. 3.) Appellants contend that the confidence
level in Pilu is directed to whether the camera has learned the user’s
5
Appeal 2016-000853
Application 13/156,598
preferences or interests sufficiently to operate in particular conditions. (Id.
citing Pilu 129-30.) We agree with Appellants that Pilu’s confidence level
does not disclose an accuracy signal related to a distance measurement
between two points on an object as claimed, nor is it apparent how Pilu’s
confidence level could be combined with Bamji’s accuracy positional error
or Schaack’s Pythagorean formula so as to achieve the claimed invention.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection.
Claims 4 and 19
The Examiner relies on Yamazaki to teach the features of claims 4
and 19. Yamazaki relates to calculating an inclination correction value
depending upon the amplifier gain in an image pickup apparatus. (Final Act.
11 citing Yamazaki | 692.) Appellants argue claims 4 and 19 on the same
basis as independent claims 1 and 15, from which these claims depend. As
the Examiner does not rely on Yamazaki to cover the noted deficiencies of
the combination of Pilu, Bamji, and Schaack, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 4 and 19.
Claim 21
The Examiner relies on Bendall to disclose a camera with a
borescope. (Final Act. 12 citing Bendall Fig. 1A [46].) As the Examiner
does not rely on Bendall to disclose the deficiencies noted with respect to
independent claim 15, from which claim 21 depends, we do not sustain the
rejection.
6
Appeal 2016-000853
Application 13/156,598
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
7