Ex Parte Balzer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2012

10545360 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DIRK BALZER and GUIDO BECKER ____________________ Appeal 2010-002876 Application 10/545,360 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-002876 Application 10/545,360 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9-11, 13, 15-20, 22, and 24-26. App. Br. 4.1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 9 and 18 are independent claims. Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal: 9. An apparatus of a motor vehicle for spatial acquisition of a scene inside or outside the motor vehicle, said apparatus comprising a LIDAR sensor which is coupled to an electronic detection device, and an image sensor which is connected to an image processing device for recording and evaluation of images of the scene, wherein said detection device and said image processing device are coupled to a computer for determining spatial data of the scene, and wherein said image sensor is formed by a 3D camera for recording three- dimensional image data, which operates according to the time-of-flight (TOF) method. Claim 18 is identical to claim 9 except that claim 18 recites "an apparatus of a motor vehicle for spatial acquisition of a scene inside and outside the motor vehicle" in the preamble. Emphasis added. THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 9-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Evans (US 6,323,941 B1; iss. Nov. 27, 2001), 1 The Examiner's Answer incorrectly indicates that claims 10-13, 15, and 17 are on appeal. Ans. 2. Appeal 2010-002876 Application 10/545,360 3 Saccomanno (US 2002/0149761 A1; pub. Oct. 17, 2002), and Hoffman (US 6,922,234 B2; iss. Jul. 26, 2005). 2. Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Evans, Saccomanno, Hoffman, and Yamamura (US 2002/0057195 A1; pub. May 16, 2002). 3. Claims 15, 16, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Evans, Saccomanno, Hoffman, and RhÃªme (US 6,133,988; iss. Oct. 17, 2000). 4. Claims 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Evans, Saccomanno, Hoffman, and Breed (US 2001/0003168 A1; pub. Jun. 7, 2001). ANALYSIS Claims 9-11 and 18-20 â€“ Evans, Saccomanno, and Hoffman Regarding claim 9, the Examiner found Evans discloses an apparatus for spatial acquisition of a scene, comprising a LIDAR sensor coupled to an electronic detection device (citing Evans, fig. 4, items 28a, 92, 96, 98, 102, 104), and an image sensor connected to an image processing device for recording and evaluation of images of the scene (citing Evans, fig. 4, items 28a, 74, 76, 80, 84, 86). Ans. 3. The Examiner found Evans' image sensor is formed by a camera for recording three-dimensional image data (citing Evans, Abstract; col. 1. ll. 50-67; col. 5) operating in a time-of-flight (method) (citing Evans, col. 1, ll. 34-42). Ans. 4. The Examiner found Evans does not teach that the scene is outside of a motor vehicle, and that the image sensor is a 3D camera. Id. The Examiner relied on Saccomanno for teaching the scene being outside the motor vehicle (citing Saccomanno, para. 9), and on Hoffman for Appeal 2010-002876 Application 10/545,360 4 teaching the sensor being a 3D camera (citing Hoffman, col. 2, ll. 13-37). Id. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Evans in view of Saccomanno to have the scene outside the vehicle, and further in view of Hoffman to have the sensor being a 3D camera as one of multiple design choices with no new or unexpected results. Id. Appellants contend that none of the cited references disclose "a 3D camera . . . which operates according to the time-of-flight (TOF) method," as claimed. App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 10. Appellants contend that a 3D time-of- flight camera has a well-known definition in the art (App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 11), and that such cameras are not scanners (Reply Br. 14). Appellants contend that Hoffman discloses a rotating laser scanner, not a 3D camera (App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 11), and that Hoffman's scanning mechanism 220 does not read according to the time-of-flight method (Reply Br. 12). Appellants also contend that a rotating scanner could not be used with the system of Evans because it would not deliver a single laser pulse. App. Br. 23. Appellants' contentions are persuasive. Appellants' Specification states, "[a]ccording to one advantageous refinement to the invention, the 3D camera operates on the basis of the time-of-f1ight (TOF) method. A non- scanning, imaging 3D camera such as this works on an array of so-called demodulation pixels." Spec. 3, ll. 13-16. In light of the Specification, we construe the limitation, "a 3D camera . . . which operates according to the time-of-flight (TOF) method," as a non-scanning 3D camera, which operates according to the time-of-flight method. Appeal 2010-002876 Application 10/545,360 5 Appellants correctly contend that Hoffman refers to the laser range finder/scanning mechanism 220 (scanning laser range finder) as a "3d camera." App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 12; see also Hoffman, col. 3, ll. 49-50; fig. 2. The Examiner did not make a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence that Hoffman discloses a non-scanning 3D camera, which operates according to the time-of-flight method. In response to Appellants' contention, the Examiner stated that "the term 3d-camera has not been limited in the claims such that it cannot include a laser scanner in the system." Ans. 8. However, the recitation, "which operates according to the time-of-flight (TOF) method," does limit the 3D camera to a non-scanning 3D camera. The Examinerâ€™s proposed interpretation is unreasonably broad and inconsistent with Appellants' Specification, which, as noted above, discloses that the 3D camera operates on the basis of the time-of-flight method as a non-scanning imaging 3D camera. The Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Appellants' Specification that supports an interpretation of a 3D time-of-flight camera as including a laser scanner. The Examiner also stated, "[r]eplace the sensor . . . of fig. 4, item 28a [of Evans] with a 3d-camera is one of multiple design choices with no new or unexpected results." Ans. 8. However, replacing Evans' semiconductor imager 28a with a 3D camera would not result in the claimed image sensor, in which the 3D camera "operates according to the time-of-flight (TOF) method," that is, is a non-scanning 3D camera. The Examiner also did not articulate an adequate reason supported by a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Evans' LADAR system by replacing semiconductor imager 28a, which is used in both modes of the system's operation, with the claimed image sensor. See Evans, col. 3, ll. 1- Appeal 2010-002876 Application 10/545,360 6 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9, and claims 10 and 11, which depend therefrom. We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 18, and claims 19 and 20, which depend from claim 18, for substantially the same reasons as those discussed for claim 9. Claims 13 and 22 - Evans, Saccomanno, Hoffman, and Yamamura; Claims 15, 16, 24, and 25 - Evans, Saccomanno, Hoffman, and RhÃªme; and Claims 17 and 26 - Evans, Saccomanno, Hoffman, and Breed Claims 13 and 15-17 depend from claim 9, and claims 22 and 24-26 depend from claim 18. The Examiner's application of Yamamura to the rejection of claims 13 and 22 (Ans. 4-5), RhÃªme to the rejection of claims 15, 16, 24, and 25 (Ans. 5), and Breed to the rejection of claims 17 and 26 (Ans. 5) does not remedy the deficiencies of the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 18, as discussed supra. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 13 and 22, claims 15, 16, 24, and 25, and claims 17 and 26. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9-11, 13, 15-20, 22, and 24- 26 is REVERSED. REVERSED Klh