Simon Raab et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 29, 2019

15625513 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2019)

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.
15/625,513 06/16/2017 Simon Raab P1422-US (FAO0772USC) 8827
136267 7590 08/29/2019
CANTOR COLBURN LLP - FARO TECHNOLOGIES INC.
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
LUU, THANH X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2878
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2019 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SIMON RAAB and CHARLES PFEFFER
____________________

Appeal 2018-007975
Application 15/625,513
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a system for
determining the position of an articulated arm coordinate measuring machine

1 Appellant is the Applicant, FARO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated November 24,
2017 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 20, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”),
Appeal 2018-007975
Application 15/625,513

2
(“AACMM”). Spec. ¶ 2. An AACMM may, for example, determine the
location of a probe tip by reading angular encoders at mechanical joints that
interconnect articulating segments or by making use of a laser to measure
distance. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4. The described invention uses both a laser tracker and
an AACMM because laser trackers can measure over a large volume but the
AACMM can measure points hidden from the laser tracker’s line-of-sight
view. Id. ¶ 5. In particular, the Specification states that the invention seeks
to provide a way to locate the position of the AACMM when moved to
different locations about an object being measured. Id. ¶ 6. Claim 1,
reproduced below with emphases added to certain key recitations, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for coordinate measurement comprising:
a laser tracker;
a moveable articulated-arm coordinate measuring
machine (AACMM) that is movable from a first position to a
second position, the AACMM having an articulated arm with a
probe end opposite a base, the AACMM having at least one
actuator;
a retroreflector coupled to the probe end;
wherein in a first instance, where the AACMM is in a first
position, the system is operable to emit a first laser beam from
the laser tracker and measure a position of the retroreflector
relative to the laser tracker in a first coordinate system while the
AACMM also measures the position of retroreflector relative to
the AACMM in a second coordinate system; and
wherein in a second instance, where the AACMM is in a
second position, the system is operable based on an activation
of the at least one actuator by an operator to transmit a signal
from the AACMM to the laser tracker and rotating the laser

the Examiner’s Answer dated June 29, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed July 31, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-007975
Application 15/625,513

3
tracker towards the second position in response to the laser
tracker receiving the signal; and
a means for transforming the first coordinate system or the
second coordinate system to a common coordinate frame of
reference is provided in the first instance.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Raab
Cramer et al.
(“Cramer”)
Steffey et al.
(“Steffey”)
US 2009/0177438 A1
US 2012/0206716 A1

US 2013/0229512 A1
July 9, 2009
Aug. 16, 2012

Sept. 5, 2013
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the following rejections:
Rejection 1. Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Raab in view of Steffey and Cramer. Final Act. 2.
Rejection 2. Claims 1–20, provisionally, on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of
copending Application No. 15/274,471. Id. at 5.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t
Appeal 2018-007975
Application 15/625,513

4
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues all claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 8. Therefore,
consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), we limit
our discussion to claim 1, and all other claims on appeal stand or fall
together with claim 1.
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 as obvious over Raab
in view of Steffey and Cramer. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Raab
teaches a system for coordinate measurement comprising a laser tracker and
AACMM as claim 1 recites. Id. at 2–3 (citing Raab). The Examiner finds
that Raab does not specifically disclose that its system is operable based on
activation of an actuator for transmitting a signal to the laser tracker. Id. at
3. The Examiner finds, however, that Steffey discloses use of an actuator to
transmit a signal to a laser tracker and determines that it would have been
obvious to incorporate Steffey’s actuator into the Raab system to provide
more flexibility in controlling the laser tracker. Id. (citing Steffey). The
Examiner finds that Raab/Steffey does not specifically disclose the
AACMM having an actuator. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that
Cramer teaches an AACMM having an actuator and determines it would
have been obvious to locate an actuator on Raab’s AACMM “to
conveniently locate the communication device and buttons and so the
operator cannot lose the actuator. . . .” Id. (citing Cramer). The Examiner
Appeal 2018-007975
Application 15/625,513

5
also finds that the combination of references teaches a system that may be
used to direct the laser tracker towards the retroreflector as claim 1 recites.
Id. at 6.
Appellant first argues that Steffey and Cramer lack an AACMM.
Appeal Br. 9–10. This argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner’s
rejection starts with the AACMM of Raab. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).3
Appellant also argues that the Examiner did not provide any rationale
for combining the elements of claim 1 “to arrive at the claimed invention
where the laser tracker is configured to automatically rotate to a second
position of the AACMM, from a first position, based on a signal transmitted
from an actuator on the AACMM, where the AACMM also has a
retroreflector.” Appeal Br. 10. This argument is unpersuasive for two
reasons. First, the Examiner stated reasons to combine the teachings of the
three cited references, as explained above, and this argument does not refute
the Examiner’s reasoning. Second, the argument is not commensurate with
the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 does not require, for example, that any

3 Even if Appellant were correct that, contrary to the Examiner, Cramer
lacks an AACMM (Reply Br. 2), such an error would be harmless. Cramer,
at a minimum, teaches a probe for use with a laser measurement system and
teaches an actuator located on the probe. See, e.g., Cramer ¶¶ 3, 15, 46, Fig.
3. Raab’s AACMM includes a probe. Raab ¶ 34 (identifying probe tip
205), Fig. 1. Raab, Steffey, and Cramer are all directed to using laser
devices to measuring and locating reflector targets. The Examiner’s
rationale for combining Cramer’s teachings regarding locating an actuator
on a probe would, therefore, remain applicable. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
Appeal 2018-007975
Application 15/625,513

6
rotation happen “automatically.” Just to the contrary, claim 1 suggests that
the operator activates the actuator and then the laser tracker rotates toward
the second position.
Appellant further argues that Steffey teaches that its actuator is a
handheld appliance that may not be located at the AACMM. The Examiner,
however, relies on Cramer as teaching an actuator located at a laser target
probe. Ans. 3. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it again
attacks the references individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Appellant also argues that Cramer discloses only an actuator with
means for stopping and starting measurements and that it therefore does not
suggest a laser tracker “configured to automatically rotate to a second
position of the AACMM.” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner’s rejection,
however, places a control actuator (as Steffey teaches) on a probe (as
Cramer teaches putting actuators on a probe). Once the Steffey actuator is
on the end of the probe of Raab’s AACMM, a user could control the laser so
that the laser tracker rotates towards a second position. Final Act. 6. We
again emphasize that claim 1 does not require automatic rotation as
Appellant argues.
Finally, Appellant argues that substantial redesign of Raab would be
required to reach claim 1. We disagree. Raab has a moveable laser tracker
(Raab ¶ 22 (teaching adjustment of position of tracker head 402)) and,
although not expressly disclosed, must have an actuator that directly or
indirectly causes the movement of the AACMM, the laser tracker, or both.
In other words, something must cause Raab’s measurement process (and
subsequent movement) to begin. The Examiner’s merely places an actuator
(as taught by Steffey (Final Act. 3)) on Raab’s probe (as taught by Cramer
Appeal 2018-007975
Application 15/625,513

7
(id.)). Appellant’s argument fails to persuasively explain why such a
modification of Raab would require substantial redesign.
Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
Rejection 2. Appellant does not argue the merits of the Examiner’s
nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Appeal Br. 13. We, therefore,
summarily affirm the rejection.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED