Ex parte Vandermeerssche et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 19, 1998

07945061 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 19, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 15, 1992.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte GASTON A. VANDERMEERSSCHE
AND STEPHEN M. DICKE
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3026
Application 07/945,0611
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, AND FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-3026
Application No. 07/945,061
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 20.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for testing a specimen for resistance to abrasion. The specimen
is optically scanned prior to abrasion to produce a first array
of pixels representing the specimen. After abrasion, the
specimen is optically scanned again to produce a second array of
pixels representing the specimen. A plurality of difference
values of corresponding pixels are produced to quantify the
abrasion of the specimen.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method of testing a specimen for resistance to
abrasion, steps of which comprise:
optically scanning the specimen prior to abrasion to produce
a first array of pixels representing the specimen;
abrading the specimen;
optically scanning the specimen after the abrading to
produce an second array of pixels representing the specimen;
producing a plurality of difference values, each one of
which indicates a degree of difference between corresponding
pixels in the first and second arrays; and
quantifying the abrasion of the specimen from the plurality
of difference values.
Appeal No. 95-3026
Application No. 07/945,061
Although the Vandermeerssche publication is used in the2
grounds of rejection, it is not listed under the prior art of
record (Answer, pages 2 and 3).
Although Gonzalez is not listed in the opening statement3
of the rejection, it is used thereafter in the body of the
rejection (Answer, pages 3 and 4).
3
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Vandermeerssche 4,507,953 Apr. 2, 1985
Yamazaki et al.(Yamazaki)3-44542 Feb. 26, 1991
(Japanese Kokai)
Vandermeerssche, “‘The Pressure Is On’ . . . The Packaging
Professional Is Facing New Challenges!,” Journal of Packaging
Technology, Vol. 1, No. 3, June 1987.
Gonzalez et al. (Gonzalez), “Digital Image Processing,” Addison-
Wesley, 1992, pages 318 through 320.
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the Vandermeerssche patent in view of the
Vandermeerssche publication, Yamazaki and Gonzalez.2 3
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
20.
The Vandermeerssche patent is described in the Background of
the Invention (specification, pages 1 and 2) as disclosing a
Appeal No. 95-3026
Application No. 07/945,061
4
testing machine that permits rubbing between two specimens to
test the abrasion resistance of coatings applied to the two
specimens. The amount of abrasion to a specimen had to be
visually determined by an observer. Vandermeerssche states
(publication, page 2, column 2) that “[i]n order to evaluate the
level of abrasion resistance in an accurate and reproducible
fashion a new method is urgently needed.” According to
Vandermeerssche, the state of the art in abrasion testing is an
instrument referred to as the “Comprehensive Abrasion Tester”
(publication, page 3, column 2). The testing apparatus described
in both the patent and the publication by Vandermeerssche do not
use pre-abrasion and post-abrasion pixel analysis.
In Yamazaki, an image from paper 41 is picked up by image
pickup camera 2, and the camera creates an image signal that is
512 pixels x 512 pixels. The pixels are analyzed by the CPU 50
in the electrical processing unit 100. Yamazaki is silent
concerning a comparison of the image signal with an earlier made
image signal from the paper.
Gonzalez was merely cited by the examiner (Answer, page 4)
for a teaching of computing “the root-mean-square error
Appeal No. 95-3026
Application No. 07/945,061
5
(difference) between two images.” Gonzalez describes (page 319)
a “root-mean-square (rms) error between an input and output
image.”
Appellants argue throughout the brief that the applied
references neither teach nor would they have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art producing separate arrays of pixels
representing the same specimen at two different times for before
and after abrasion analysis. We agree. Accordingly, the
obviousness rejection is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3026
Application No. 07/945,061
6
George E. Haas
QUARLES AND BRADY
411 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497