Ex Parte Pitcher

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 2, 2016

12773616 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121773,616 05/04/2010
23280 7590 08/04/2016
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th A venue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gary Pitcher
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.
560.1016 6366
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2016 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):
ddk@ddkpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY PITCHER
Appeal2015-002114
Application 12/773,616
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MER CADER, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-10 and 12, which are all the claims pending in this
application. 1' 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is AREVA Inc. (App.
Br. 2.)
2 Claim 11 was cancelled previously. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-002114
Application 12/773,616
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to "increas[ing] the speed, quality and
coverage of nuclear power plant visual inspections, as well as using a lower
cost camera and reducing the camera failure rate during inspection." (Spec.
iT 4.)
Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
1. A method for filtering radiation from inspecting a nuclear
power plant on a CCD based camera inspection video, the
method comprising:
capturing video signals in the nuclear power plant via the
camera;
converting the video signals to a plurality of digital video
frames;
identifying radiation bright spots caused by interference
from radiation in the nuclear power plant in a pixel of at least one
of the frames; and
replacing the radiation bright spots and surrounding pixels
with corresponding pixels of another of the frames to create a
filtered frame.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chugg (US 7, 145, 150 B2; iss. Dec. 5, 2006) ("Chugg") in
view ofKravis et al. (US 7,965,816 B2; iss. June 21, 2011) ("Kravis"). (See
Office Action (mailed Jan. 14, 2014) ("Office Act.") 3-10.)
Claims 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chugg in view of Kravis, and further in view of Van
Tyne, Sr. (US 5,153,924; iss. Oct. 6, 1992) ("Van"). (Office Act. 10---11.)
2
Appeal2015-002114
Application 12/773,616
Claims 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cho et al. ("A CCD Camera Lens Degradation Caused by
High Dose-Rate Gamma Irradiation"; pub. July 2009, Vol. 58, No. 7)
("Cho") in view of Chugg. (Office Act. 11-12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
positions with regard to claims 1-10 and 12.
Claims 1-9
Chugg in View of Kravis
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that:
Chugg does not explicitly disclose replacing the radiation
bright spots and surrounding pixels with corresponding pixels of
another of the frames to create a filtered frame.
In the same field of endeavor, !