Ex Parte Lutke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

13105306 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/105,306 05/11/2011
63759 7590 04/27/2016
DUKEW. YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin R. Lutke
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.
10-0942-US-NP 2982
EXAMINER
OWENS, TSION B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN R. LUTKE
Appeal2014-008468
Application 13/105,306
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20, which are all the claims pending in
this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Boeing Company of
Chicago (App. Br. 2).
2 Claim 8 has been canceled.
Appeal2014-008468
Application 13/105,306
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to methods and devices for providing
navigation information to operate an unmanned vehicle (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for processing video information for a
vehicle, the method comprising:
selecting a number of prior images from images generated
by the vehicle, wherein an object is seen in the number of prior
images; and
displaying a model of the vehicle in the number of prior
images in a current position of the vehicle and with a size that is
based on the current position of the vehicle relative to the object
in the number of prior images, wherein displaying the model
further includes indicating the model in phantom when the
current position of the vehicle is hidden from view by the object.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Rotem et al. (US 2010/0292868 Al; Nov. 18, 2010)
("Rotem"), Maki Sugimoto et al. (Time Follower's Vision: A Teleoperation
Interface with Past Images, IEEE Computer Graphics Applications, Vol. 25,
Iss. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2005, pp. 54---63) ("Sugimoto"), and Sakai et al. (US
2009/0140881 Al; June 4, 2009) ("Sakai") (see Ans. 2-7).
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Rotem as disclosing the
recited method step of "selecting a number of prior images from images
generated by the vehicle" for processing video information for a vehicle, and
on Sugimoto as disclosing the step of "displaying a model of the vehicle in
2
Appeal2014-008468
Application 13/105,306
the number of prior images in a current position of the vehicle and with a
size that is based on the current position of the vehicle relative to the object
in the number of prior images" (Ans. 2). The Examiner further finds Sakai
discloses the claim limitation of "wherein displaying the model further
includes indicating the model in phantom when the current position of the
vehicle is hidden from view by the object" (Ans. 3 (citing Sakai Fig. 7B, i-fi-1
18, 56)). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Sugimoto and Sakai with
Rotem in order to improve presentation of information to an operator by
providing "additional information and an intuitive interface to facilitate
navigation of a remote control vehicle carrying a video camera" (id. (citing
Rotem i1 4)).
Appellant argues the proposed combination does not teach or suggest
"wherein displaying the model further includes indicating the model in
phantom when the current position of the vehicle is hidden from view by the
object" because the cited passages in Sakai relates to capturing a blind-spot
image (App. Br. 7, 10 (citing Sakai i-fi-f 18, 56)). Acknowledging Sakai
discloses converting the blind-spot image and the received forward-view
image to a common birds-eye viewpoint, which includes the blind spot and
the current position of the object vehicles, Appellant contends Sakai does
not disclose the recited steps of "selecting a number of prior images" and
"displaying a model of the vehicle" (App. Br. 10).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's contentions that the Examiner
erred because the rejection is based on the combination of Sakai with Rotem
and Sugimoto (see also Reply Br. 3--4). That is, Sakai teaches converting
the blind-spot image to a corresponding image, and combining the viewpoint
3
Appeal2014-008468
Application 13/105,306
of the vehicle driver, and the forward-view image and viewpoint-converted
blind-spot image to form a synthesized image (see Ans. 9). The Examiner
further relies on Rotem and Sugimoto for teaching the recited steps of
"selecting a number of prior images" and "displaying a model of the
vehicle" (see id.). In other words, the teaching value of Sakai is
synthesizing images to produce an image of the objects in a blind spot area
as seen in the driver's field of view, whereas capturing a robotic vehicle's
size, position, and environment or surrounding and Virtual exocentric
viewpoint using previous or prior image are taught by Sugimoto and
showing the vehicle at the location within the prior image is taught by
Rotem.
We also agree with the Examiner that paragraphs 120 and 126 of
Sakai discloses selecting the number of prior images and displaying the
model of the vehicle "for at least one of a number of locations to form a
number of displays with a number of artificial points of view,'' recited in
claim 6 (see Ans. 6). As discussed above, we are not persuaded by
Appellant's contention that the cited passages in Sakai do not teach
obtaining images from a vehicle because the Examiner cited Rotem and
Sugimoto as disclosing the disputed feature. Appellant's contentions focus
on the references separately and ignore the fact that the proposed rejection is
based on the combination of Rotem with Sugimoto and Sakai (see App. Br.
10-12). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the alleged change in the principle of operation of Rotem
(see App. Br. 12-13), we also agree with the Examiner's findings and
conclusion (see Ans. 7-10) and adopt them as our own. The Examiner finds
4
Appeal2014-008468
Application 13/105,306
Sakai discloses "a vehicle-mounted camera capturing a forward-view image
corresponding to a viewpoint of a driver" and Rotem discloses "a remote
control vehicle carrying a video camera producing a sequence of images and
tracking a current position of the vehicle" (Ans. 10). As explained by the
Examiner, the disclosure of capturing a forward-view image in the cited
portions of Sakai, when considered together with the disclosure of image
production and vehicle tracking of Rotem, does not change the principle of
operation of Rotem with respect to capturing and processing images (see
id.). Furthermore, the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton," and this is a case in which the skilled artisan would "be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 421 (2007).
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Rotem,
Sugimoto, and Sakai teaches or suggests the disputed features of claims 1
and 6. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1
and 6, as well as claims 2-5, 7, and 9-20, which are not argued separately or
with sufficient specificity (see App. Br. 6-14).
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 9-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5