Ex Parte Wen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12896949 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/896,949 10/04/2010
69638 7590 04/01/2016
KAMRATH IP Lawfirm, PA
4825 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 150
Golden Valley, MN 55422
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kuang-Pu Wen
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.
P02477-TES-0001-US 1926
EXAMINER
LUO,KATEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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 KUANG-PU WEN, DON LIN, and LIANG-PIN YU
Appeal2014-007972
Application 12/896,949
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .. .. , 1 .. • .. ,..... ,- T T r'1 I'\ l\ -1 ,..... Al / '\. I"" , "1
Appeuants' seeK our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-16, which are all the claims pending
in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Test Research Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007972
Application 12/896,949
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to a measuring system for a 3D object.
Spec. 1 :4--5.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A measuring system used for measuring a 3 D
object comprising:
a base;
a horizontal scanning device disposed on the
base;
a first light emitting device connected to the
horizontal scanning device, with the first light
emitting device comprising a first lighting
component and a first lens, wherein the first lighting
component projects a first light onto the 3D object
through the first lens;
a second light emitting device connected to
the horizontal scanning device, with the second
light emitting device comprising a second lighting
component and a second lens, wherein the second
lighting component projects a second light onto the
3D object through the second lens;
an image capture device connected to the
horizontal scanning device, with the image capture
device capturing a plurality of images of the 3D
object when the first light or the second light is
projected onto the 3D object, wherein the image
capture device is disposed between the first light
emitting device and the second light emitting
device, wherein the image capture device comprises
a sensing chip module and a telecentric lens; and
a control device controlling the horizontal
scanning device to move horizontally relative to the
base with a constant-speed area scanning;
2
Appeal2014-007972
Application 12/896,949
controlling the first light emitting device and
the second light emitting device with the first light
and the second light projected onto the 3D object in
an alternating pattern; and
controlling the image capture device to
capture the plurality of images of the 3D object
when the first light or the second light is projected
onto the 3D object and the horizontal scanning
device is on the constant-speed area scanning.
The Rejections
Claims 1, 10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Koh (US 7,453,580 B2; Nov. 18, 2008), Jeon (US 7,400,413 B2; July 15,
2008), and Fujita (US 2005/0139099 Al; June 30, 2005).
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koh,
Jeon, Fujita, and Hiramatsu (US 2005/0272184 Al; Dec. 8, 2005).
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koh,
Jeon, Fujita, Hiramatsu, and Ulrich (US 6,509,559 Bl; Jan. 21, 2003).
Claims 6, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koh,
Jeon, Fujita, Hiramatsu, Ulrich, and Bjeljac (US 2009/0326730 Al; Dec. 31,
2009).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koh, Jeon,
Fujita, Hiramatsu, Ulrich, Bjeljac, and Gelphman (US 5,920,735; July 6,
1999).
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koh,
Jeon, Fujita, and Ulrich.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koh, Jeon,
Fujita, and Bjeljac.
3
Appeal2014-007972
Application 12/896,949
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koh, Jeon,
Fujita, and Gelphman.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Koh, Jeon, and Fujita teach or suggest the
limitations of claim 1, and concludes one of ordinary skill in the art would
find it obvious to combine their teachings, "the motivation being to measure
3D objects." Final Act. 5. Appellants contend, inter alia, the Examiner errs
because, "[t]he statement 'the motivation being to measure 3D objects'
contended by the Examiner in light that both Koh and Jeon measure 3D
objects is clearly a mere conclusory statement which the Supreme Court
indicated would not sustain a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103." Br. 8
(emphasis added).
We agree with Appellants. The Supreme Court has made clear that
"' [R ]ejections on obviousness 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) (citing In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, the Examiner's reasoning supporting
the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have combined the cited
teachings is merely a restatement of the preamble of claim 1. Such
reasoning lacks a sufficient rationale underpinning to support a legal
conclusion of obviousness, for example, because neither Koh nor Jeon lacks
a teaching or suggestion of measuring 3D objects. See Final Act. 3--4 citing
Koh, col. 3, 11. 13-25 (describing "a three-dimensional image measuring
4
Appeal2014-007972
Application 12/896,949
apparatus") and Jeon, FIGS. 2 and 3 (described as depicting a side view and
a front view of a 3D shape measuring apparatus).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1. The Examiner does not remedy the
deficiency discussed above in the rejections of dependent claims 2-16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C § 103(a) rejections of
claims 2-16 for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16.
REVERSED
5