Ex Parte NIXON

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

13873857 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/873,857 04/30/2013 Stuart William NIXON
22850 7590 09/26/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
415480US91CONT 1197
EXAMINER
MCINNISH, KEVIN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
OPA
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STUART WILLIAM NIXON
Appeal2017-000986
Application 13/873,857 1
Technology Center 2400
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 2-
7 and 9-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to photogrammetry wherein there is
minimal overlap between the detailed images forming a strip and the
1 The real party in interest is nearmap Australia PTY, LTD. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-000986
Application 13/873,857
resolution of the detailed images are of higher resolution to the overview
resolution. Spec. para. 77.
Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
2. A method of creating a seamless photo map of a survey area,
the method comprising:
(a) moving a vehicle relative to the survey area along a set
of substantially parallel survey paths;
(b) capturing, during vehicle movement and via an
overview imaging system carried by the vehicle, a sequence of
overview images, each overview image depicting an overview
area of the survey area, consecutive overview areas along each
survey path having a first degree of forward overlap, adjacent
overview areas associated with adjacent survey paths having side
overlap;
( c) capturing, during vehicle movement and via a first
detail imaging system carried by the vehicle, a sequence of detail
image strips, each detail image strip comprising at least one
detail image, each detail image depicting at least a portion of an
overview area, each detail image having a higher resolution than
a resolution of the overview image corresponding to the
overview area, consecutive detail image strips along each survey
path having a second degree of forward overlap, the second
degree of overlap being smaller than the first degree of overlap,
adjacent detail image strips associated with adjacent survey paths
having side overlap, adjacent detail images within each strip
having side overlap;
( d) identifying, in a plurality of the overview images and
detail images, common features corresponding to common
ground points;
( e) estimating, via bundle adjustment and using locations
of the identified ground points in the plurality of overview
images and detail images, an exterior orientation associated with
each detail image; and
(f) merging, using at least some of the estimated exterior
orientations, the detail images to create the seamless photomap.
2
Appeal2017-000986
Application 13/873,857
App. Br. 16-17 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Knopp
Leberl
US 2005/0031197 Al
US 2009/0041368 Al
REJECTIONS
Feb. 10,2005
Feb. 12,2009
Claims 2-7 and 9-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Leberl in view of Knopp.
OPINION
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the combination of Leberl and Knopp
does not teach or suggest the limitation of "the second degree of overlap
being smaller than the first degree of overlap" as recited in independent
claim 2.
In the Final Action, the Examiner directs us to Leberl' s Figure 14 and
paragraph 87 for teaching this limitation. Final Act. 3. In particular the
Examiner finds:
Figure 14 shows the overlapping of two flight lines as well as the
footprints of the forward/backward views and left/right
sidelooking-views. The primary images are illustrated as
overlapping in a much more concentrated fashion than those of
the left and right secondary images. Within paragraph [0087],
Leberl states "it is necessary for images to be repeated
sufficiently rapidly so that the leftright looking images overlap
stereoscopically (i.e., so that each point on the ground appears in
at least two sub-images) as shown." Paragraph [0087] then
further discloses that for fore/aft overlap, in one example
3
Appeal2017-000986
Application 13/873,857
embodiment, the overlap 1s achieved by 60% side overlap
between primary images.
Final Act. 3.
We find Appellant's arguments persuasive of Examiner error. We do
not find any support for the disputed limitation in Leberl's paragraph 87.
Nor can we determine from Liberl's Figure 14 that "[t]he primary images
are illustrated as overlapping in a much more concentrated fashion than
those of the left and right secondary images" as asserted by the Examiner.
Final Act. 3. Our reviewing Court has held that "it is well established that
patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and
may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is
completely silent on the issue." Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group
Int'!, Inc., 222 F.3d 951,956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Similarly here, we cannot
ascertain from Figure 14 the degree of overlap of the secondary images in
relation to the primary images. While we agree with the Examiner that
paragraph 87 does teach "60% side overlap between primary images," we
see no teaching or suggestion of "the second degree of overlap being smaller
than the first degree of overlap" as required by claim 1 ( emphasis added).
Final Act. 3.
Knobb does not cure the above cited deficiency. The Examiner finds
that Knopp teaches "full and sparse stereo overlap readily". Final Act. 3--4.
But we find no such support in Knopp. We agree with Appellant that in
Knopp there is no disclosure of the two type of images being used together
(see App. Br. 5-11, citing to paragraphs 97 and 99) and we note that this is
further supported by the Abstract stating that the imagery is acquired from
"full or sparse stereo."
4
Appeal2017-000986
Application 13/873,857
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 3-7 and 9-21. 2
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7 and 9-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
2 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner should consider
whether the limitation of "at least one detail image" is vague and indefinite
because in light of the Specification (Fig. 6A and Spec. para. 71 stating
"taken with minimal overlap between the detail images forming the strip"
( emphasis added)) and Appellants arguments, there should be at least two
images to have an overlap. Furthermore the Examiner should consider
whether the limitation of "consecutive detail image strips along each survey
path having a second degree of forward overlap, the second degree of
overlap being smaller than the first degree of overlap" is vague and
indefinite because the forward overlap (see App. Br. 7) in the Specification
and Appellant's arguments are in reference to detail images, not the "detail
image strips." Consequently the Examiner should further consider whether
the claims should be rejected under 112 1st paragraph for lack of written
description.
5