Ex Parte Pretlove et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

12747340 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
12/747,340 09/02/2010 John Pretlove 04189 - P0197A 6064
137670 7590 09/25/2017
ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
EXAMINER
VALDEZ, PATRICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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 JOHN PRETLOVE and CHARLOTTE SKOURUP
Appeal 2016-006093
Application 12/747,340
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER,
and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—42 and
44—57 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2-3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006093
Application 12/747,340
Introduction
The invention is directed to “a computer implemented method for
remote inspection of a process in an industrial installation.” Specification 1.
Illustrative Claim
1. A computer implemented method for remote inspection of a
real process infrastructure of an industrial process in an
installation for extraction, processing and/or production of
materials, wherein said process is supervised by a control system
comprising one or more computers, and at least one computer
display apparatus, wherein said computer comprises a
graphic computer 3D model of said process infrastructure, said
method comprising:
selecting in the 3D model a representation of a part of said
process infrastructure for inspection,
identifying a selected part of the real process infrastructure
based on the selection in the 3D model,
matching the selected part of said process infrastructure on
the 3D model to a known position in said installation by utilizing
information stored by a software process object of the selected
part of said process infrastructure implemented by said control
system,
superimposing one or more real images, acquired by at
least one camera, of the selected part of said real process
infrastructure on top of an image of said representation from said
3D model,
forming or combining graphically a display image
comprising one or more images of the selected part of said real
process infrastructure superimposed on and combined with the
image from said 3D model, and
retrieving and displaying context sensitive information
activated by a selection on the at least one computer display
apparatus or other computer input methods or device
wherein the method integrates information about and
control of the real process infrastructure.
2
Appeal 2016-006093
Application 12/747,340
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—12, 14, 19-22, 24—35, 40-42, 44-46, 48, and 52—57 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Skoump
(US Patent Application Publication 2006/0241793 Al; published October
26, 2006), Pretlove (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0241792 Al;
published October 26, 2006) and Neumann (US Patent 7,583,275 B2; issued
September 1, 2009) Final Rejection 3—24.
Claims 13 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Skourup, Pretlove, Neumann and Sawhney (“Video
Flashlights - Real Time Rendering of Multiple Videos for Immersive Model
Visualization” published 2002. Final Rejection 24—25.
Claims 15, 23, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Skourup, Pretlove, Neumann and Chapman (“An
Omnidirectional Imaging System for the Reverse Engineering of Industrial
Facilities,” The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences published 2004. Final Rejection
25-26.
Claims 16—18 and 37—39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Skourup, Pretlove, Neumann and Jia (US Patent
6,947,593 B2; issued September 20, 2005). Final Rejection 27—30.
Claim 47 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Skourup, Pretlove, Neumann and Thybo (US Patent
Application Publication 2007/0130971 Al; published June 14, 2007). Final
Rejection 30—31.
Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Skourup, Pretlove, Neumann, Chen (US Patent
3
Appeal 2016-006093
Application 12/747,340
Application Publication 2005/0027186 Al; published February 3, 2005) and
Chen (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0141966 Al; published
June 4, 2009). Final Rejection 31—32.
Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Skourup, Pretlove, Neumann and Samearasekera
(US Patent 7,633,520 B2; issued December 15, 2009). Final Rejection 32—
34.
Claim 51 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Skourup, Pretlove, Neumann and Tani (US Patent
Application Publication 2004/0227739 Al; published November 18, 2004).
Final Rejection 34—35.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 28, 2015), the Reply Brief
(filed May 20, 2016), the Final Rejection (mailed April 30, 2015) and the
Answer (mailed March 23, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellants argue:
The combination of Skourup et al., Pretlove et al. and Neumann
et al. does not suggest the invention recited in claims 1—12, 14,
19-22, 24—35, 40-42, 44-46 and 48 since, among other things,
the combination does not suggest a method for remote inspection
including matching a selected part of a process infrastructure on
a 3D model to a known position in an installation by utilizing
information stored by a software process object of the selected
part of the process infrastructure implemented by a control
system. Additionally, the combination does not suggest
superimposing at least one real image of a selected part of the
real process infrastructure on top of an image of a representation
from the 3D model, forming or combining graphically a display
4
Appeal 2016-006093
Application 12/747,340
image including the at least one image of the selected part of the
real process infrastructure superimposed on and combined with
the image from said 3D model, and retrieving and displaying
context sensitive information activated by a selection on the at
least one computer display apparatus or other computer input
methods or device.
Appeal Brief 25.
Appellants proceed to argue each reference individually and fail to
particularly point out errors in the Examiner’s reasoning to persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness and therefore we find
Appellants’ arguments non-persuasive.1 We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Consequently,
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—42 and 44—57.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—42 and 44—57 are
affirmed.
1 “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)).
5
Appeal 2016-006093
Application 12/747,340
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
6