Cognex Vision View
Trudi Miranda
Tens of thousands of applications worldwide inspect billions of products each day, many products that simply could not be manufactured without machine vision technology. Whether verifying the fill levels of soda bottles traveling on a conveyer, reading oil-stained DPM codes on automotive parts or positioning touch screens on smart phones to micron-level accuracy, machine vision technology performs highly-detailed tasks on high-speed production lines. CIMTEC and Cognex offer a range of vision view products to support your production needs:
The In-Sight 7000 series is a full-featured, powerful vision system that performs fast, accurate inspections of a wide range of parts across all industries. Its compact footprint easily fits into space-constrained production lines and the unique, modular design is highly field-customizable to your application requirements. Along with the internal and external power/control lighting options, the In-Sight 7000 series also has a highly visible pass/fail LED indicator light ring around the camera body, making it easy to see the inspection status no matter where the system is installed.
Whether you need vision for inspection or for robotic guidance, Cognex machine vision software stands apart from the competition with proven tools available in prototyping environments to support all modes of development. Go to our website and see the entire family of vision view products by Cognex, www.cimtecautomation.com or call one of our expert engineers at 877.524.6832.
Cognex Corporation (NASDAQ: CGNX) has enhanced its VisionView operator interface with new features that enable more detailed visualization of parts, easier storage of failed images, and a PC display option. VisionView is a touch screen display interface for Cognex In-Sight vision systems that makes it easy for operators to view and closely monitor what the vision systems are doing on their production lines.
VisionView 1.2 expands the choices available to users for customizing their display and capturing application data. New pan and zoom capability enables closer examination of defective parts, and makes it easier to accurately focus the vision system for high resolution images. Production line operators can also download images of failed parts automatically to an external storage device, and have the ability to save application parameter changes directly to an existing job, or rename and save them as a new job.
Also new in VisionView 1.2 is the option to run the VisionView operator interface on a PC. The VisionView PC software has all the features of the operator panel, plus the flexibility to use any display that can be connected to a PC.
Copyright 2024 WTWH Media LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media
Privacy Policy Advertising About Us
"With manual inspection methods, it may take an operator up to a minuteto thoroughly examine a close-up image of a fibre end for defects. Because theprocess is highly subjective, operators may visually interpret defects indifferent ways, resulting in the false acceptance of defective cables, which mayfail in field use. The new FiberInspect system, developed by our fibre opticproducts team, can accurately and quickly determine if a cable is good, bad, orneeds to be re-polished, thereby eliminating guesswork and improving throughput",said Justin Testa, Senior Vice President of Marketing for Cognex.
Utilising proprietary, unique software algorithms, FiberInspect can detectfibre end defects smaller than a single micron, even when there is poor imagecontrast between the defect and background. In a typical application, an imageof a polished fibre end is acquired by a fibrescope camera and transferreddirectly to the FiberInspect system, which analyses the image, graphicallyhighlights each defect, and provides data about the position and size of each.The system can also be set up to classify defects by a certain defect type, suchas a crack, to help users better understand problems that exist in the polishingprocess.
FiberInspect features a Windows-based graphical user interface, making iteasy for users to operate the system. Accept/reject criteria are entered intosimple dialogue boxes, and the system automatically adapts to the fibre typebeing inspected. Additionally, the system enables defects to be graphicallyhighlighted in user-defined colours, making it easier for operators to viewspecific types of defects.
The FiberInspect package consists of advanced machine vision inspectionsoftware, a Cognex MVS-8100 frame grabber, and a Windows™-basedgraphical user interface. A Visual C++ software development kit version of theproduct is also available for OEMs.
This is a patent infringement action in which the plaintiff, Cognex Corporation ("Cognex"), alleges that the defendant, Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. ("ESI") infringed Cognex's United States patent numbered 5,371,690 ("the '690 patent"). There are two steps to an infringement analysis: the first is to determine "the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed" and the second is to compare "the properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing." Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 134 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1996). While the second step presents a question of fact for the factfinder, the first step is a question of law for the court. Id. at 979. It is this first step, known as claim construction, that I must now perform. Both parties briefed their proposed claims constructions and presented evidence, at a two-day Markman hearing beginning on July 8, 2002, in support of their respective contentions.
In construing the claims of a patent, the court looks first to the words of the claim. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2002) ("We begin our claim construction analysis, as always, with the words of the claim."). The court interprets the claim terms in light of the intrinsic evidence: the written description and the drawings in the specification and the prosecution history. Id. at 1325 ("The intrinsic evidence may provide context and clarification about the meaning of claim terms."); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996) ("Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.").
To begin the analysis, the court presumes that claim terms carry their ordinary meaning, as understood by someone of ordinary skill in the art of which the invention is a part. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. "Determining the limits of a patent claim requires understanding its terms in the context in which they were used by the inventor, considered by the examiner, and understood in the field of the invention." Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299 (Fed.Cir.1999). A court may consult several sources of evidence to identify this ordinary meaning. These sources include the standard intrinsic sources (claims, specification, and prosecution history) as well as dictionaries and *113 technical treatises. Id.; Bell Atlantic Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed.Cir.2001) ("Dictionaries and technical treatises, which are extrinsic evidence, hold a `special place' and may sometimes be considered along with the intrinsic evidence when determining the ordinary meaning of claim terms."). However, dictionaries are frequently of limited usefulness. For technical terms, the Federal Circuit "caution[s] against the use of non-scientific dictionaries `lest dictionary definitions ... be converted into technical terms of art having legal, not linguistic significance.'" Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1267 (quoting Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir.1998)). As for common, non-technical terms, "the dictionary definitions of common words are often less useful than the patent documents themselves in establishing the usage of ordinary words in connection with the claimed subject matter." Toro Co., 199 F.3d at 1299. In sum, "[j]udges ... may ... rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 n. 6.
The written description and drawings of the specification are particularly important sources for claim construction. A court may use the specification, first, to identify the ordinary meaning of disputed claim terms. Id. at 1582 ("[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is dispositive: it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."). "The specification, of which the claims are part, teaches about the problems solved by the claimed invention, the way the claimed invention solves those problems, and the prior art that relates to the invention. These teachings provide valuable context for the meaning of the claim language." Eastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 114 F.3d 1547, 1554 (Fed.Cir.1997), overruled on other grounds by Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc).
The specification may also on occasion narrow or otherwise alter the meaning of claim terms. The categories of cases in which this may occur and especially the emphasis on such cases used by the various Federal Circuit opinions are not entirely consistent. Indeed, some of the categories seem to overlap. Nevertheless, I have identified in the relevant precedents four main ways in which the patent specification may modify the meaning of claim terms.
The best-established method is that by which "the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history." CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2002). While the definition of a term in the specification must be expressed "clearly," it need not be done explicitly. "Indeed, [the Federal Circuit] ha[s] specifically held that the written description of the preferred embodiments `can provide guidance as to the meaning of the claims, thereby dictating the manner in which the claims are to be construed, even if the guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format.'" Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (quoting SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1344); see also Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 ("The specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication."); but cf. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325 ("[A]n *114 inventor may choose to be his own lexicographer if he defines the specific terms used to describe the invention `with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.'") (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.Cir.1994)). For example, "when a patentee uses a claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single meaning, he has defined that term `by implication.'" Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1271 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582).
c80f0f1006