Ex Parte Prior Carrillo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13697086 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
13/697,086 11/09/2012 Miguel Angel Prior Carrillo 83337046 5234
28395 7590 09/29/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER MESSMORE, JONATHAN R
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIGUEL ANGEL PRIOR CARRILLO, JOSE SIMON PLAZA,
ALVARO HERRAEZ MARTINEZ, JOSE MANUEL ASENSIO MUNOZ,
JOSEP TORNERO MONSERRAT, ANA VIRGINIA RUESCAS
NICOLAU, and LEOPOLDO ARMESTO ANGEL
Appeal 2017-001650
Application 13/697,0861
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 8—20. Claims 1—7 have been withdrawn from consideration. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Ford Espana S.L. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001650
Application 13/697,086
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to “an inspection system and a method
of detecting defects on specular surfaces” such as vehicle body panels.
Spec. 112, 19.
Exemplary independent claim 8 is reproduced below.
8. A method of inspecting an article for surface defects
comprising:
acquiring images of a surface of the article with a camera
as a light source is moved with respect to the article;
merging images acquired by the camera;
blurring a merged image to compensate for variations in
levels of illumination provided by the light source; and
detecting a defect based on blurring of the merged image.
References and Rejections
1. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Clarke (US 4,920,385; Apr. 24, 1990). Final Act. 2—3.
2. Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Clarke and Rao (US 6,630,996 B2; Oct. 7, 2003). Final
Act. 4—5.
3. Claims 13—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Clarke, Rao, and Takahashi (US 2005/0264672 Al;
Dec. 1, 2005). Final Act. 5—8.
ANALYSIS
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments that Appellants could
2
Appeal 2017-001650
Application 13/697,086
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, or that are made in a
conclusory fashion, are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments and adopt
as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in
the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We provide
the following explanation for emphasis.
Claims 8—12
Appellants argue “Clarke does not merge images acquired by the
camera and blur a merged image to compensate for variations in levels of
illumination provided by the light source.” App. Br. 2. According to
Appellants
Clarke merely notes that, relative to a more severe slope
associated with a dent, images A’ and B’ may “come together
to form a blurred image which ‘grows’ in one direction or the
other as the beam is scanned over the sloped sides of the dent,”
Clarke, col. 7,11. 63-67.
App. Br. 2—3. Appellants emphasize, “Clarke is not performing the
operations of merging images and blurring the merged image because
images A’ and B’ would not come together and form a blurred image if the
slope associated with large dent B was more severe (not moderate).” App.
Br. 3 (citing Clarke 7:64—66 (“For more moderate slopes, the two images
come together to form a blurred image which ‘grows.’”)). In other words,
according to Appellants’ Clarke does not purposefully merge and blur the
images. Instead the images are merged and blurred only if the slope of the
dent is moderate, which is not under Clarke’s control. See Reply Br. 2.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner’s
findings show that Clarke discloses a defect detection system where two
images of panel surfaces “come together to form a blurred image.” Final
3
Appeal 2017-001650
Application 13/697,086
Act. 3 (citing Clarke 7:63—65) (emphasis omitted); Ans. 8. The fact that this
happens only under certain situations (i.e. when the slope of the dent is
moderate), is not a persuasive reason why Clarke does not teach or suggest
the claim limitations. Nor have Appellants identified, with specificity, any
claim limitations indicating why the merging and blurring of Clarke’s
images occurring only sometimes or by happenstance is distinguished by the
claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 and of
claims 9-12 which depend from claim 8 and were not argued separately.
See App. Br. 3.
Claims 13—20
Appellants argue the Examiner’s reasoning in combining Clarke with
Rao and Takahashi “impermissibly relies on implicit conclusions that lack
support in the references.” App. Br. 3. In particular, Appellants argue
“[njothing in . . . Rao would suggest that such [semiconductor inspection]
technology would somehow improve the speed of the sheet metal defect
detector of Clarke, or that Clarke even had an issue with speed . . . .” App.
Br. 3. Appellants further argue “nothing in Takahashi or Clarke suggests
that Clarke is somehow flawed because it does not use spectral information.”
App. Br. 3^4.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
provided improper reasoning for combining Clarke with Rao and Takahashi.
The Examiner finds Rao teaches a system capable of providing more rapid
feedback and that such teachings could be used in a system with cameras
and lights, such as Clarke’s. Ans. 9 (citing Rao 3:24—29). The Examiner
also finds one of ordinary skill would combine Takahashi with Clarke “in
4
Appeal 2017-001650
Application 13/697,086
order to use spectral (i.e. more) information in the flaw detection processes.”
Final Act. 6. In light of these findings, we conclude the Examiner has
articulated a reason with rational underpinning for combining the prior art
that stems from Rao’s and Takahashi’s own disclosure rather than from
hindsight reasoning.
Appellants’ argument that “[j]ust because the semiconductor wafer
inspection industry purportedly had issues with speed does not mean that the
sheet metal defect detector industry had issues with speed” (App. Br. 3) is
belied by Clarke’s own disclosure that rapid evaluation of defects would be
beneficial and desirable. See Clarke 1:32-41 (“It is therefore very desirable
to have a method for rapidly, automatically and objectively evaluating such
defects .... Such rapid, quantitative analysis of defects is important for . . .
just-in-time production systems . . . .”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 and
claims 14—20 which were argued together as a group. See App. Br. 3^4.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8—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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5