Ex Parte SAEKI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

14091915 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/091,915 11/27/2013
7055 7590 12/26/2018
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Takeshi SAEKI
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.
P44505 8883
EXAMINER
SUN, YULIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKES HI SAEKI and HIROSHI SAKAI,
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, which constitute all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Mitutoyo Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to an orthogonal state measuring device with a
stylus head, the measuring device including a wide angle surveillance
camera that captures a birds' -eye view of the workpiece to be measured and
including a display. The birds' -eye view is utilized to define a position of
the workpiece and a navigation map is displayed showing the position of the
stylus head and the workpiece. Abstract, Spec. ,r,r 2---6, Figs. 1, 3-5. Claim
1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal ( emphasis
added):
1. An orthogonal state measuring device comprising:
a measurement table;
a stylus head configured to be displaced in X, Y, and Z
directions relative to the measurement table and further configured to
measure a work piece to be measured that is placed on the
measurement table;
a wide angle surveillance camera configured to capture
in one pass an image that is arrangeable into a bird's-eye image
of the work piece, the bird's-eye image encompassing an entire
field over which the stylus head is capable of relative
displacement;
a processor configured to:
generate the bird's-eye image based on the image;
define a position of the stylus head on the bird's-eye
image; and
generate a navigation map in which the position of the
stylus head is composited with the bird's-eye image; and
a display configured to display the navigation map.
App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Asano et al. (US 2004/0109205 Al; pub. June 10,
2004) ("Asano") in view of Kondo et al. (US 2004/0130501 Al; pub. July 8,
2004) ("Kondo"). Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Asano, Kondo, and Shirai et al. (US 2003/0160757
Al; pub. August 28, 2003) ("Shirai"). Final Act. 2-5.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs regarding the teaching of Asano
and Kondo and argues the Examiner's reasoning in combining Asano and
Kondo is inadequate. App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 7-10.
The Examiner finds Asano teaches the orthogonal measuring device
of claim 1 including a stylus head camera 34, a second camera 3 8, a
processor, and a display. Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Asano ,r,r 4 7, 48). The
Examiner finds Asano "implicitly discloses such camera [ second camera] is
a wide angle surveillance camera, such processor generating a navigation
map and such display displaying the navigation map," and refers to Kondo
as teaching the wide angle surveillance camera that generates a navigation
map and a display that displays the navigation map:
Kondo teaches a wide angle surveillance camera ( e.g. Fig. 1 Element
11 or Fig. 5 Omnidirectional camera 21, paragraph [0055]) configured
to capture in one pass an image that is arrangeable into a bird's eye
image of the workpiece (e.g. Paragraph [0050, 0056, 0057, 0172]), and
generate a navigation map ( e.g. Fig. 15 and Paragraph [O 102-0104 ], the
3d coordinate system or a dome screen that shows the relationship
between camera 21 and surrounding viewpoints; see Fig. 20 as
example.) in which the position of the stylus head (in this case, one of
surround cameras or one of the viewer's points) with the bird's eye
3
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915
image ( e.g. Fig. 11 and Paragraph [0090-0092]), and display the
navigation map (e.g. Figs. 25-27, Paragraph [0049, 0071, 0160-0168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of
the invention to modify device of Asano with the positional bird's eye
imaging method of Kondo in order to enable a user to readily grasp
position relationship and allow an image with a sense of presence to be
displayed (Kondo: Paragraph [0008]).
Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's reasoning in combining Asano
and Kondo is inadequate. App. Br. 8-9 (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Appellants also argue Kondo does not teach the
claimed "navigation map" because Kondo' s map is internally generated,
does not composite a position of a stylus head (or camera) with a bird's eye
image, and is not displayed on a display, as set forth in claim 1. Id. at 10.
According to Appellants, Asano is directed to a known three-coordinate
measuring system and Kondo relates to a virtual-reality-type system that
provides telepresence in a virtual space and, therefore, the resultant
combination would be an immersive, telepresent view of a user's position in
relation to a measuring system and would not result in the generation of a
navigation map in which the position of a stylus head is composited with the
bird's-eye image, as set forth in claim 1. Id. ( citing Asano ,r 41 ).
Appellants argue the 3d coordinate system used in a virtual-reality-
type system that provides telepresence in a virtual space does not render
obvious the generation of a navigation map in which the position of the
stylus head is composited. Id. According to Appellants, the displaying of a
feature from outside the user's virtual world ( a location of a stylus head or
4
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915
CCD camera) would detract from a user's immersive experience in Kondo.
Id.
Appellants argue, unlike Kondo, claim 1 specifies that the navigation
map is displayed whereas the only discussion in Kondo of a "map" relates to
"a three dimensional coordinate system, which is in tum used by the system
to convert omnidirectional-image data representing a doughnut-shaped
region into latitude-longitude-image data (which is not a map) representing a
rectangular region." Id. at 10-11 (citing Advisory Act; Kondo ,r 126, Fig.
17) ( emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, the Kondo coordinate
map is internally generated and does not composite a position of a stylus
head ( or camera) with a bird's eye image, and is not displayed on a display.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Asano has already disclosed a
stylus head is capable of relative displacement and is capable of displaying
and Kondo teaches a wide angle surveillance camera to generate a combined
image. Ans. 6 (citing Asano ,r,r 47, 48, 58). The Examiner finds Kondo
teaches a navigation map and displaying the navigation map. Id. (citing
Kondo Figs. 15, 20, 25-27, ,r,r 49, 71, 16-168). Regarding the combination
of Asano and Kondo, the Examiner concludes:
Id.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
incorporate device of Asano with wide angle surveillance camera of
Kondo and generate a combined dimensional image to show
positional information of the stylus head of Asano and display it to
enable a user to readily grasp position relationship and allow an image
with a sense of presence to be displayed (Kondo: Paragraph [0008]),
so it's beneficial to the user to view and control the position of stylus
head.
5
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915
Regarding Appellants' argument that Kondo's map is internally
generated and does not composite a position of a stylus head with a birds'-
eye image which is displayed on a display, the Examiner observes that one
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. Id. at 6 ( citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the "navigation map," the Examiner notes that claim 1
merely recites "navigation map and the 3d coordinate system of Kondo
composites a position of a styl[us] head (or camera) with a bird's eye image .
. . [and] the location of a surrounding camera in Kondo is equivalent to the
location of a user's viewpoint." Id. at 7 ( citing Kondo, Figs. 11, 19, 20).
The Examiner notes that "generation of a navigation map in which the
position of the stylus head is composited" does not define what a navigation
map is, whether it is limited to "from outside the user's visual world" or not,
so as long as the position of the stylus head is composited, or the location of
a surrounding camera of Kondo is composited, and, therefore, the 3d
coordinate system of Kondo is sufficient to suggest the claim limitation "a
navigation map in which the position of the stylus head is composited with
the bird's-eye image" recited in claim 1. Id.
The Examiner finds, contrary to Appellants' assertion that Kondo
avoids showing the user the location of a camera, Kondo teaches "the user is
allowed to experience a sense of immersion provided by the immersion
image and to readily grasp his/her own position by the bird's eye image" and
"the location of a surrounding camera is equivalent to the location of a
user's viewpoint." Id. (citing Kondo ,r 88).
6
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue "Kondo provides a three
dimensional coordinate system ( asserted by the Examiner as corresponding
to the recited "navigation map"), which is in tum used by the system to
convert omnidirectional-image data representing a doughnut-shaped region
into latitude-longitude-image data ( which is not a map) representing a
rectangular region." Reply Br. 6 ( citing Kondo, ,r 126, Fig. 17) ( emphasis
omitted). According to Appellants, this coordinate "map" is internally
generated by Kondo, does not composite a position of a stylus head ( or
camera) with a bird's eye image, and is not displayed on a display, as
generally recited in claim 1. Id.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in stating claim 1 merely recites
"navigation map" because the claim recites "a navigation map in which
the position of the stylus head is composited with the bird's-eye image." Id.
Appellants argue the location of a surrounding camera in Kondo is not
equivalent to the location of a user's viewpoint because displaying a feature
from outside the user's virtual world ( a location of a stylus head or CCD
camera) would detract from a user's immersive experience in Kondo. Id. at
6-7.
We agree with the Examiner's findings that Asano teaches a
conventional orthogonal state measuring device including a stylus head
(camera 34), camera (CCD camera 38), a processor, a display, and the
camera captures images associated with the position of the stylus head.
Final Act. 3--4 (citing Asano ,r,r 47, 48; see also Figs. 1, 2, 6, ,r,r 3, 8, 10, 14,
46--48, 58). We also agree with the Examiner's finding that Asano
"implicitly discloses such camera is a wide angle surveillance camera, such
processor generating a navigation map and such display displaying the
7
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915
navigation map." Id. at 3--4. In this connection, the conventional orthogonal
state measuring device of Asano uses the additional camera to determine the
position of the device to be measured, displays the imaging related to the
position, and maps the position for the measurement by the stylus head. See,
for example, Asano, Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 18; ,r,r 3, 5, 8, 14, 47, 48, 58, 82.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding Kondo, and
the combination of Kondo with Asano, and agree, instead with the
Examiner's findings, claim interpretations, and conclusions. The
Examiner's reliance on Kondo includes its general teaching to employ a
wide angle surveillance camera to capture a birds' -eye view: "[ t ]he present
invention enables a user to readily grasp his/her own positional relationship
and also allows an image with a sense of presence to be displayed." Kondo
,r 8. Asano already uses a camera for relative positioning, but does not
expressly specify the use of a wide angle camera. As discussed supra, the
Examiner provides sufficient reasons with factual underpinnings why one of
ordinary skill in the art would combine Kondo with Asano whereas
Appellants' arguments regarding the combination are improperly based on
bodily incorporation. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 5---6.
We note, prior to addressing Appellants' arguments regarding the
specific details of Kondo, the Examiner has shown sufficiently that the
combination of Ansano and Kondo teaches the claim 1 limitations.
Regarding the "navigation map." We agree that Kondo teaches a composite
of the position of a stylus head (camera) with a bird's-eye image, and the
location of Kondo' s surrounding camera is equivalent to the location of a
user's viewpoint. The claim does not limit the "navigation map" to inside or
outside a user's world and Kondo's 3d coordinate system constitutes a
8
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915
"map" which composites the position of the camera with the birds' -eye
image. We note Kondo describes the use of maps and mapping. See Kondo,
Fig. 18, if 82.
On the record before us, we find no persuasive arguments that the
Examiner's findings and claim interpretations are unreasonable, overbroad,
or inconsistent with Appellants' Specification. Here, the term "map" is not
explicitly defined and Appellants' arguments are based on an unreasonably
narrow claim interpretation. Applying a broad, but reasonable claim
interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of the cited
references teaches the claim 1 limitations, including the disputed limitations.
Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Moreover, Appellants argue the references individually while the
rejection is based on the combination of the teachings of the cited references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references." ( citations omitted)); In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants also argue an unreasonably narrow teaching of the cited
references and an overly demanding standard of obviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
9
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Here, the Examiner provides sufficient evidence as required for
obviousness. As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness
rejection must be based on:
[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness .... [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
Based upon the teachings of the references and the fact that each
claimed element was well-known in the art, we agree with the Examiner
because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Id. at 415-16. We note Appellants present no persuasive arguments that the
results are unpredictable. Moreover, as discussed supra, the Examiner
additionally provided reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would
combine each of the references in the manner suggested.
Furthermore, on this record, Appellants do not present sufficient or
persuasive evidence that the combination of the cited references was
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
10
Appeal2018-003447
Application 14/091,915
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 419--21). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of
secondary considerations, which our reviewing court guides "operates as a
beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese &
Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
dependent claims 2--4 as these claims are not argued separately. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 under
35 U.S.C § 103(a).
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
11