Ex Parte ROGERS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2018

14463599 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/463,599 08/19/2014 Steven W. ROGERS
181 7590 10/22/2018
MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC
1751 PINNACLE DRIVE
SUITE 1500
TYSONS CORNER, VA 22102-3833
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.
T9089- l 9896US01 5985
EXAMINER
TOWE, JOSEPH DANIE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2018 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):
ipdocketing@milesstockbridge.com
lmansfield@milesstockbridge.com
dtsepal@milesstockbridge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN W. ROGERS, ERIC F. BRYAN, ADAM C. BROWN,
BRANDON J. McGINLEY, and ERIC R. SELLERS
Appeal2018-002700
Application 14/463,599 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-25, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Snap-on Incorporated as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 4.
Appeal2018-002700
Application 14/463,599
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates generally
to vehicle wheel alignment systems, and more particularly to machine vision
alignment systems having movable cameras that continuously self-calibrate
their positions relative to targets. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A vehicle alignment system utilizing camera pods adapted to
autonomously track a vehicle, the system comprising:
first and second supporting tracks;
a first autonomous camera pod mounted to the first track to move
autonomously along a first length of the first track, the first autonomous
camera pod comprising:
a first motor drive adapted to move the first autonomous
camera pod along the first length of the first track,
a first camera adapted to capture image data of a first target
mounted to the vehicle, the first camera generating first image data,
a calibration target disposed in a fixed relationship to the first
camera, and
a first data processor; and
a second autonomous camera pod mounted to the second track to
move autonomously along a second length of the second track, the second
autonomous camera pod comprising:
a second motor drive adapted to move the second autonomous
camera pod along the second length of the second track,
a second camera adapted to capture image data of a second
target mounted to the vehicle, the second camera generating second
image data,
a calibration camera disposed in a fixed relationship to the
second camera adapted to capture image data of the calibration target,
the calibration camera generating calibration image data, and
a second data processor;
the first data processor of the first autonomous camera pod being
adapted to:
receive the first image data from the first camera,
2
Appeal2018-002700
Application 14/463,599
autonomously determine, based at least in part on the first
image data, whether to cause the first autonomous camera pod to
move along the first length of the first track, and
transmit, when the first data processor determines to cause the
first autonomous camera pod to move along the first length of the first
track, a first motor command to the first motor drive thereby causing
the first autonomous camera pod to move along the first length of the
first track; and
the second data processor of the second autonomous camera pod
being adapted to:
receive the calibration image data from the calibration camera,
autonomously determine, based at least in part on the calibration
image data, whether to cause the second autonomous camera pod to
move along the second length of the second track, and
transmit, when the second data processor autonomously
determines to cause the second autonomous camera pod to move
along the second length of the second track, a second motor command
to the second motor drive, thereby causing the second autonomous
camera pod to move along the second length of the second track.
References and Rejections2
Claims 1--4, 7, 8, 14--18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kling, III et al. (US 2009/0073425 Al; published
March 19, 2009) ("Kling"), Jackson et al. (US 2002/0027651 Al; published
March 7, 2002) ("Jackson"), and Battiti et al. (US 6,341,013 Bl; issued
January 22, 2002) ("Battiti"). Final Act. 8-25. 3
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection dated
December 27, 2016 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief dated July 20, 2017
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer dated November 20, 2017
("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief dated January 16, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3 The heading (Final Act. 8) incorrectly includes claims 5 and 6, which
appear to be typographic errors. The next section (Final Act. 25-26)
correctly includes the rejection of claims 5 and 6.
3
Appeal2018-002700
Application 14/463,599
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kling, Jackson, Battiti, and Rogers et al. (US
2009/0024272 Al; published January 22, 2009) ("Rogers"). Final Act.
25-26.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kling, Jackson, Battiti, and Daley et al. (US 2013/0229159 Al; published
September 5, 2013) ("Daley"). Final Act. 26-27.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kling, Jackson, Battiti, and Chaffee (US 2012/0256566 Al; published
October 11, 2012). Final Act. 27-28.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kling, Jackson, Battiti, and McGrane et al. (US 7,793,126
B2; published September 7, 2010) ("McGrane"). Final Act. 28-31.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kling, Jackson, Battiti, McGrane, and Hosek et al. (US
2014/0201571 Al; published July 17, 2014) ("Hosek"). Final Act. 31-33.
Claims 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kling and Jackson. Final Act. 33-36.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kling, Jackson, and McGrane. Final Act. 36-37.4
4 The Examiner cites pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) for the rejections, but the
correct basis for the rejections is 35 U.S.C. § 103. We note Appellants do
not contend the discrepancy caused prejudice.
4
Appeal2018-002700
Application 14/463,599
ANALYSIS 5
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in determining Kling and Jackson
collectively teach
a first autonomous camera pod ... comprising: ...
a calibration target disposed in a fixed relationship to the first
camera ...
a second autonomous camera pod ... comprising: ...
a calibration camera ... adapted to capture image data of the
calibration target, the calibration camera generating calibration image
data, and ...
the second data processor of the second autonomous camera pod
being adapted to:
receive the calibration image data from the calibration camera,
autonomously determine, based at least in part on the
calibration image data, whether to cause the second
autonomous camera pod to move along the second length of the
second track,
as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 7-10;
Reply Br. 2-5.
"[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007); see
also Metalcraft Of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Without any explanation as to ... why the
references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are
5 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not need to reach the additional arguments.
5
Appeal2018-002700
Application 14/463,599
left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against ... we cannot allow
hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into
something that is the claimed invention.").
The Examiner uses Kling as the primary reference, and cites the
combination of Kling and Jackson for teaching the italicized limitation. See
Final Act. 8-12. To support the legal conclusion of obviousness, the
Examiner determines:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to take the
teachings of Jackson and apply them to the teachings of Kling
to teach that the wheel alignment system of Kling may include
a calibration target and calibration camera and structurally
disposed in the manner suggested by Jackson for the benefit of
a calibration system that is capable of measuring the relative
positions of two measurement modules.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to take the
teachings of Jackson and apply them to the teachings of Kling
to teach the use of calibration in the process of wheel alignment
to keep two independently moving cameras in appropriate
positions of one another to allow for obtained data between the
two cameras that are relatable through the same coordinate
system[.]
Final Act. 11-12 (emphasis omitted).
Contrary to the Examiner's determination (Final Act. 11-12), Kling is
"a calibration system that is capable of measuring the relative positions of
two measurement modules," and includes the feature of "us[ing] calibration
in the process of wheel alignment to keep two independently moving
cameras in appropriate positions of one another to allow for obtained data
between the two cameras that are relatable through the same coordinate
6
Appeal2018-002700
Application 14/463,599
system." See Kling ,r,r 97-100. The Examiner has not adequately explained
why one skilled in the art would have modified Kling' s system to
incorporate Jackson's features in order to accomplish what Kling already
does. Therefore, Examiner has not provided sufficient "articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning" to support a prima facie case of
obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
In the Answer, the Examiner further determines that one skilled in the
art would have pursued the modification in order to "teach a method of
calibration that would necessarily have to occur between two independent
towers/rods/ etc. which would allow the cameras mounted to them to stay at
about the same height as desired during the wheel aligner process." Ans. 4.
It is unclear why "allow[ ing] the cameras mounted ... to stay at about
the same height ... during the wheel aligner process" (Ans. 4) is necessary
or desirable, as the Examiner does not cite any evidence for such a feature.
Nor does the Examiner explain why one skilled in the art would have
pursued that feature. In any event, Kling can perform that function. See
Kling ,r,r 97-100. The Examiner has not adequately explained why one
skilled in the art would have modified Kling' s system to incorporate
Jackson's features in order to accomplish what Kling already does.
Therefore, Examiner has not provided sufficient "articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning" to support a prima facie case of obviousness.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
7
Appeal2018-002700
Application 14/463,599
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient support for the legal
conclusion of obviousness, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. 6
For each of independent claims 16 and 21, the Examiner cites similar
reasoning ( discussed above regarding claim 1) for the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See Final Act. 21-22, 35; Ans. 4--5. Therefore, for similar
reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 16 and
21.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejections of corresponding dependent
claims 2-15, 17-20, and 22-25. Although the Examiner cites additional
references for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown
the additional references overcome the deficiency discussed above regarding
the rejection of independent claims 1, 16, and 21. See Final Act. 25-37.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25.
REVERSED
6 As discussed above, we are constrained to conclude the Examiner has
failed to provide a sufficient reason with rational underpinning to combine
the teachings of Jackson and Kling. Should prosecution continue, the
Examiner may wish to consider Kling and Jackson (see Jackson ,r,r 3-9) in
light of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2143(I)(B)
"Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain
Predictable Results" and MPEP § 2143(I)(C) "Use of Known Technique To
Improve Similar Devices (Methods, or Products) in the Same Way." Such
sections provide exemplary rationales to support a conclusion of
obviousness and what an Examiner must articulate to support such a
conclusion.
8