Ex Parte Gandyra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2016

12560704 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/560,704 09/16/2009
28249 7590 03/22/2016
DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP
Dilworth & Barrese, LLP
1000 WOODBURY ROAD
SUITE405
WOODBURY, NY 11797
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Gandyra
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
298-479 1881
EXAMINER
LONG,FONYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2016 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 MICHAEL GANDYRA and
MARCUS STEINBICHLER
Appeal2013-010203
Application 12/560,704
Technology Center 3600
Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We affirm.
1 The Appellants identify Steinbichler Optotechnik GmbH as the real party
in interest. (Br. 3).
Appeal2013-010203
Application 12/560,704
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants claim a scanner for scanning an object. (Spec. 1, 11. 6-9).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A scanner for scanning one or more teeth (13, 14, 15) in a
mouth of a patient, comprising a handle part (3) and a carrier (2)
on which a plurality of projectors ( 4) for projecting a pattern onto
the one or more teeth and a plurality of cameras ( 5) for recording
the one or more teeth are provided in an array.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Deichmann
Stevick
US 2003/0164952 Al Sept. 4, 2003
US 2007/0299338 Al Dec. 27, 2007
REJECTIONS
The following rejection is before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stevick and Deichmann.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Stevick discloses a scanner comprising multiple projectors and cameras
to generate a three-dimensional image of the surface of an object.
(Para. 32).
2. Stevick discloses using the scanner to image an oral cavity. (Para. 69).
3. Stevick discloses an embodiment where "by using four cameras 10 and
four projectors 11 arrayed in gene rally Cartesian directions, the system
2
Appeal2013-010203
Application 12/560,704
can very rapidly capture the front, sides, and back views of the object."
(Para. 76).
4. Deichmann discloses a compact scanner for use scanning the interiors of
body cavities. (Para. 25).
5. Deichmann discloses a handle attached to a probe, with a light that
projects "a structured light pattern 501 onto the interior surface of the
object 502. The camera 503 acquires images of the reflection 504 of the
light pattern from the surface. By locating the light pattern in the
images, the corresponding 3D surface positions can be reconstructed
applying well-known projective geometry." (Para. 55).
6. Deichmann discloses the "scanner only scans limited parts of the
surface at each position and usually it has to be moved around handheld
or automatically to scan the full interior surface." (Para. 55).
7. Stevick discloses "[m]ultiple projectors and/or cameras can be used to
obtain views that would be occluded if just one projector camera pair
were used." (Para. 32).
ANALYSIS
Initially, we note that the Appellants argue independent claims 1 and
11 together as a group. (Br. 9). Correspondingly, we select representative
claim 1 to decide the appeal of these claims, with remaining claim 11
standing or falling with claim 1. Appellants do not provide a substantive
argument as to the separate patentability of claims 2-10 and 12-20 that
depend from claims 1 and 11. Thus claims 2-20 stand or fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
3
Appeal2013-010203
Application 12/560,704
Appellants argue the "large-scaled requirements of Stevick make its
system impossible to scan one or more teeth in a mouth of a patient."
(Br. 8). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because Stevick
discloses a scanner using multiple cameras and projectors (FF 1 ), and an
application of its scanner for teeth and oral cavities (FF 2).
Appellants argue if one adds the handle from Deichmann to the
apparatus of Stevick, the "resulting combination would result in a table with
a handle attached thereto. Even if a handle of Deichmann was attached to a
table 16 of Stevick, the table 16 would remain incapable of scanning one or
more teeth in a mouth of a patient." (Br. 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Stevick discloses a
scanner comprising multiple cameras and projectors. (FF 1 ). Stevick
discloses the use of the scanner device for teeth and oral cavities (FF 2, 3).
No dimensions are disclosed in Stevick. Deichmann, discloses a scanner
device for use inside the mouth (FF 4), consisting of a handle connected to a
probe, on which a single camera and projector is mounted (FF 5).
Deichmann discloses the single camera requires moving the device and
capturing multiple images. (FF 6). Stevick discloses that multiple cameras
aid in capturing images where an object may be obstructed in the view of
some cameras. (FF 7). The Examiner thus determines that it would be
obvious to combine the disclosure of Stevick and Deichmann. (Final 6-7).
We determine that the ordinary artisan would have recognized this
combination could either involve reducing the size of the Stevick multi-
camera/projector embodiment to fit on the Deichmann handle and probe, or
could involve adding additional cameras and projectors to Deichmann's
handle and probe. In either case, the combination would yield a small,
4
Appeal2013-010203
Application 12/560,704
multi-camera, multi-projector device that would be capable of scanning teeth
in the mouth of a patient. It would not lead to a full-size table with an
attached handle, as Appellants appear to indicate.
Appellants also argue Stevick only discloses a single camera and
single projector. (Br. 8-9). We disagree with Appellants, because Stevick
discloses embodiments with multiple cameras and projectors. (FF 3).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5