ABB Schweiz AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 4, 2020

2020004076 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2020)

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.
15/777,791 05/21/2018 Peter Almhager 04190-P0309A 9663
137670 7590 12/04/2020
ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
EXAMINER
FEREJA, SAMUEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2020 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 PETER ALMHAGER, STEFAN LINDBERG, and
UNO BRYFORS

Appeal 2020-004076
Application 15/777,791
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, GREGG I. ANDERSON,
and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–18. Claim 12 was
previously cancelled. Final Office Action mailed August 1, 2019 (“Final
Act.”), 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ABB Schweiz
AG, Baden, Switzerland. Appeal Brief filed December 20, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”), 2.
Appeal 2020-004076
Application 15/777,791
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a camera system to remotely control
container cranes used to move shipping containers at container terminals and
freight harbors. Spec.2 ¶¶ 2, 3, 7. As contrasted to tiltable camera mounting
systems, Appellant’s camera is fixedly mounted to a crane to obtain a series
of captured images, which images are cropped, the cropped images forming
a video. Id. ¶ 7. An input signal indicates a current weight of a load of the
crane. Id. “[T]he control device is configured to control a position of the
respective cropped image within the captured image based on the current
height of the load.” Id.
The container crane control system has a fixed mounted camera,
which is advantageous over tiltable cameras. Spec. ¶ 8. Tiltable cameras
are more impacted by environmental factors, like wind, rain, and snow. Id.
“The control of the position of the cropped image corresponds to a pan and a
tilt of the cropped image, as if the camera 10 were to be physically rotated as
a result of the camera control signal.” Id. ¶ 36.
Figures 4A and 4B are reproduced below.

2 We use “Spec.” to refer to the Amended Specification filed June 27, 2019;
“Ans.” to refer to the Examiner’s Answer filed March 11, 2020; and “Reply
Br.” to refer to the Reply Brief filed May 11, 2020.

Appeal 2020-004076
Application 15/777,791
3
Figures 4A and 4B are schematic diagrams illustrating electronic
zoom of the cropped image

Spec. ¶ 25.
Referring to Figure 4A, a position 35 is defined at a top left corner of
cropped image 30. Id. ¶ 47, Fig. 4A. The position 35 is made up of an x
coordinate 35x and a y coordinate 35y. Id. When panning, the x-coordinate
35x is changed to 35x', as shown in Figure 4B. Id. Still referring to
Figure 4B, when tilting, the y-coordinate 35y is changed to 35y'. Id.
“Hence, the camera 10 does not need to be able to tilt or rotate to provide
pan and tilt functions, and can thus be fixedly mounted to the crane 51.” Id.
¶ 36.
Apparatus claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
1. A container crane control system comprising:

a camera configured to be fixedly mounted to a crane to obtain a
series of captured images;

a video output configured to provide a video signal including a
series of cropped image respectively based on the series of
captured images; and

a control device configured to, for at least part of the captured
images and the respective cropped image, receive an input
signal indicating a current height of a load of the crane,
wherein the control device is configured to control a position
of the respective cropped image within the captured image
based on the current height of the load.

Appeal Br. 17.
Appeal 2020-004076
Application 15/777,791
4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references.
Name3 Reference Publication Date
T. Takehara US 2005/0131574 A1 June 16, 2005
K. Rintanen US 2015/0291400 A1 Oct. 15, 2015
K. Tanizumi US 2016/0119589 A1 Apr. 28, 2016
F. Irie US 2018/0124326 A1 May 3, 2018 (filed Dec. 18,2017)
REJECTIONS4
Claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Rintanen and Tanizumi. Final Act. 5–13.
Claims 5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rintanen, Tanizumi, and Irie. Id. at 13–16.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rintanen, Tanizumi, and Takehara. Id. at 16–18.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of 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). Arguments not made
are waived. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 A rejection to claims 11 and 12 was withdrawn after those claims were
amended. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-004076
Application 15/777,791
5
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that the cropped image limitation is taught by
Rintanen’s 3D camera 3 connected to sensors “including image area (4),
upper surface (8) of the lower container (1), and part (10) of the image area
of the container (1').” Final Act. 5 (citing Rintanen ¶¶ 53–54, 102, Figs. 3, 4
(part 8), 5 (part 10)). Appellant disputes that image area 4 of Rintanen’s
Figure 3 is a cropped image, arguing that area 4 instead “represents the field
of view [that is] covered/imaged by the camera 3.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant
then explains that Figure 3 “shows an exemplary image 7 captured by the
camera 3, wherein the captured image 7 corresponds to the image area 4”
and that “[w]ithin the captured image 7, an area 8 depicts the upper surface
of the lower container 1.” Id. Appellant then argues “the captured image 7
represents a portion shadowed by the container 1'” . . . and “the areas 8
and 10 merely identify parts of the captured image, but are not cropped
images themselves.” Id. (citing Rintanen ¶¶ 59, 63, 66, 67, 75, Figs. 5 and
6). The Examiner’s Answer repeats the position from the Final Action that
areas 8 and 10 of Rintanen are cropped images. Ans. 16–17 (citing Rintanen
¶¶ 50, Figs. 3, 4, 5).
Appellant’s Reply Brief argues Rintanen does not teach that partial
areas 8 and 10 “are cropped images or are images that result from cropping.”
Reply Br. 3. Appellant also points out that Rintanen discusses how image
area 8 may have a different shape or disappear completely. Reply Br. 4
(citing Rintanen ¶ 53, Fig. 4). Appellant then argues if the image 8
completely disappears, it cannot be a cropped image. Id.
Appeal 2020-004076
Application 15/777,791
6
ISSUE
Does Rintanen teach “a video output configured to provide a video
signal including a series of cropped image respectively based on the
series of captured images” (the “cropped image” limitation), as recited in
claims 1 and 9?
ANALYSIS
“Before considering the rejections . . ., we must first [determine the
scope of] the claims . . . .” In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262 (CCPA
1974). A general purpose dictionary defines “crop,” in the context of
photography, to be a verb that means “to cut off or mask unwanted edges or
areas of (a negative or print).” COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Complete
and Unabridged 2012 Digital Ed. (available at https://www.dictionary.com/
browse/crop?s=t). This definition is consistent with Appellant’s usage in the
Specification. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 35 (“The captured images are cropped
. . .”), 41 (“the zoom signal controls a size of the cropped image compared to
the captured image . . . “). In other words, cropped images “are images that
result from cropping.” Reply Br. 3; see also Spec. Figs. 4A, 4B (cropped
images 30 and 30').
In light of this definition of “cropped,” which we adopt, Appellant’s
arguments persuade us of error. As argued by Appellant, the Examiner does
not show that areas 8 and 10 are cropped images. See Appeal Br. 9 (citing
Rintanten ¶¶ 59, 63, 66–67, 75, Figs. 5, 6). In fact, Rintanten’s Figure 6
depicts four cameras 3, labeled as sensor 1 through sensor 4, each camera
taking respective distance images 7, labeled as image 1 through image 4. Id.
A portion of each camera’s field of view is occluded or occupied by the
upper shipping container 1', which is depicted by the four image 7s’
Appeal 2020-004076
Application 15/777,791
7
respective darkened shadow areas 10. Id. ¶ 59; Fig. 6. In some images 7,
regions of the upper corners of the lower shipping container 1 are visible,
and these upper corners are represented by hashed areas 8. Id. ¶ 54, 59;
FIG. 6. In summary, Rintanen’s elements 8 and 10 represent views of
objects that appear within complete images 7—not cropped images.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9. We, likewise, do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claims 10 and 11, for which the Examiner relies on
similar rationales. Final Act. 11. We also do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 2–4, 6, 8, 13, 14, and 18, which depend from independent
claims 1 and 9–11.
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 5, 7, and 15–17, the Examiner does not rely on either of Irie or
Takehara to cure the deficiencies of the obviousness rejection noted above.
Final Act. 13–18. We, therefore, do not sustain the obviousness rejections
of these claims for the same reasons set forth in relation to the independent
claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 8–11,
13, 14, 18
103 Rintanen, Tanizumi 1–4, 6, 8–
11, 13, 14,
18
5, 15, 16 103 Rintanen, Tanizumi,
Irie
5, 15, 16
Appeal 2020-004076
Application 15/777,791
8
7, 17 103 Rintanen, Tanizumi,
Takehara
7, 17
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
REVERSED