Ex Parte Pechatnikov et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 21, 2019

11607511 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 11/607,511 11/30/2006 44696 7590 Dr. Mark M. Friedman Moshe Aviv Tower, 54th floor 7 Jabotinsky St. Ramat Gan, 5252007 ISRAEL 03/25/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael Pechatnikov 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. 4172/2 1208 EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2019 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): patents@friedpat.com friedpat.uspto@gmail.com rivka_f@friedpat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL PECHATNIKOV, V ADIM ZLOTNIK, and V ADIM KOSOY 1 Appeal2017-003998 2 Application 11/607 ,511 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, AMBER L. HAGY, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Non- Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 17, 20, 22, and 25-27. Claims 4--16, 18, 19, 1 Appellants identify VISIONMAP Ltd., "of which a controlling share is owned by RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems Ltd.," as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Our Decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed June 14, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Jan. 9, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed Nov. 9, 2016) and Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Action," mailed Aug. 24, 2015). Appeal2017-003998 Application 11/607 ,511 21, 23, and 24 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b)(l). We REVERSE. Invention Appellants' Specification relates to mapping systems, specifically using a camera assembly in an airborne aircraft to capture aerial photographs of a ground area. Spec. ,r,r 1, 3, 20. As an aircraft with the camera travels along its flight path, one or more cameras capture a series of aerial photographs, as depicted in Figure 1, which is a simplified diagram of a typical flight path of an aircraft having seven cameras mounted within it, according to an embodiment of the invention. Id. ,r 12. 9 f ; r-.,r L-~1 FIG. 1 , ' ' ' , , , ' , ' , , , , ' , ' , ' ' , , , , , , , Â¢i==:~ Q F I H lA--+ ~-c,, , , ' ' , ' , ' ' ' , ' , i ! ' , ' ' , ,-~-------r~ I H 5 J L-~~ I , , , ' ' ! I i i ! J Figure 1 shows five legs of a flight path P over a terrain, with an illustration of how ground photographs are taken, each photograph shown as a field of view 110 (for leg 1) or 130 (for leg 2), with the fields of views for each 2 Appeal2017-003998 Application 11/607 ,511 camera overlapping slightly and together making up a strip 120 (for leg 1) or 140 (for leg 2). Id. ,r,r 20, 25-27. The field of view for each image is captured sweeping transverse to the direction of flight, moving forward along the flight path in time. Id. ,r,r 20, 25-27. The camera is moved rotationally around an axis as the image is captured, so "the line of sight of the camera[(s)] sweeps across strips transverse to the flight path. Id. ,r 44. The continuous camera movement is compensated for by a mirror mounted on a piezoelectric tilt platform. Id. ,r,r 44--47. Exemplary Claim Claims 1 and 25 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with some limitations italicized for emphasis, is exemplary: 1. Apparatus for capturing images while in motion, compnsmg: at least one camera having a digital sensor, housed within an aircraft defining a primary direction of flight, for capturing aerial images of ground terrain; a motor for rotating said at least one camera about an axis so as to generate a back-and-forth sweeping motion for a field of view of said at least one camera transverse to said axis; an optical assembly connected to said at least one camera, said optical assembly including a tilt-mirror assembly including a first mirror and an actuator associated with said first mirror for tilting said first mirror about at least one tilt-mirror axis; and a motion compensation controller associated with said tilt-mirror assembly and configured to actuate said tilt-mirror assembly such that, while said motor rotates said at least one camera smoothly and continuously to generate said sweeping motion of said field of view, said motion compensation controller actuates said actuator to tilt said first mirror about said at least one tilt-mirror 3 Appeal2017-003998 Application 11/607 ,511 axis synchronously with sampling of a plurality of images so as to cancel-out said sweeping motion of said field of view during each image exposure, thereby stabilizing a line of sight of said at least one camera for sampling of each image. REJECTION ON APPEAL3 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 17, 20, 22, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 as anticipated by Partynski et al. (US 2003/0185549 Al; published Oct. 2, 2003). Non-Final Action 3-5. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over a combination of Partynski and Marshall et al. (US 6,414,294 Bl; issued July 2, 2002). Non-Final Action 6-7. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over a combination of Partynski and Sun (US 2007/0115211 Al; issued May 24, 2007). Non-Final Action 7. ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Partynski discloses teaches or suggests an "optical assembly including a tilt-mirror assembly" and "a motion compensation controller associated with said tilt-mirror assembly and configured to actuate said tilt-mirror assembly such that, while said motor rotates said at least one camera smoothly and continuously to generate said sweeping motion of said field of view, said motion compensation controller actuates said actuator to tilt said first mirror about 3 All rejections are under the provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code in effect prior to the March 16, 2013, effective date of the Leahy- Smith America Invents Act of 2011. 4 Appeal2017-003998 Application 11/607 ,511 said at least one tilt-mirror axis synchronously with sampling of a plurality of images so as to cancel-out said sweeping motion of said field of view during each image exposure," as recited in claim 1? Partynski discloses an apparatus for capturing pictures in motion, including a camera for capturing aerial images of ground terrain, a motor for rotating the camera about an axis to generate a back-and-forth sweeping motion for a field of view for the camera. Partynski ,r,r 62, 63, Fig. 2; see Non-Final Action 3--4. The Examiner finds that the claimed tilt-mirror assembly included in the claimed optical assembly is disclosed in Partynski, via the incorporation by reference of Lareau et al. (US 5,668,593; issued Sept. 16, 1997). Non-Final Action 4 (citing Partynski ,r,r 15, 104; Lareau 7:46-50, 8:35-37, 13:44--47). "[T]o demonstrate anticipation, the proponent must show 'that the four comers of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention."' Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 458 F.3d 1310, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The prior-art document "must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four comers of the document, but must also disclose those elements 'arranged as in the claim."' Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369 (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Thus, a patent challenger cannot rely on portions from different embodiments in a prior art document to demonstrate anticipation. See id. at 13 71. "A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention 'such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in 5 Appeal2017-003998 Application 11/607 ,511 possession of the invention."' In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal citation and emphasis omitted) ( quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929,936 (CCPA 1962)). "Material not explicitly contained in the single, prior art document may still be considered for purposes of anticipation if that material is incorporated by reference into the document." Advanced Display Sys., 212 F.3d at 1282. "To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents." Id. Determining what material from the incorporated document, in addition to the original document, constitutes the single reference is a question of law; determining whether that single reference describes the claimed invention is a question of fact. Id. at 1283. We analyze the anticipation issues according to these principles. While Partynski discusses and cites Lareau, including explicitly incorporating by reference Lareau, these discussions do not refer to specific sections of Lareau. Partynski incorporates Lareau in the section describing related art. Partynski ,r,r 8, 15. The Examiner cites paragraph 104 of Partynski as also incorporating or referencing Lareau; however given the context and paraphrasing, we assume the Examiner means to refer to Partynski's paragraph 140. Non-Final Action 4 (citing Partynski ,r 104); compare Partynski ,r 104 with id. ,r 140. Partynski describes Lareau as "a step-frame electro-optic camera system with electronic forward motion compensation" - "step-frame" describing successive exposures of the cells of the camera array as the direction of the camera is changed in a sequence of discrete preselected 6 Appeal2017-003998 Application 11/607 ,511 angular steps, as opposed to the "smooth roll motion" discussed in Partynski. Partynski ,r 140; Lareau 4:20-26. Partynski presents an embodiment in which Partynski' s described "smooth roll motion and motion compensation feature" is applied to Lareau's step-frame camera. Partynski ,r 140. Partynski discloses: Id. In this embodiment, the roll motors are coupled to the step frame scan head assembly, and continuously rotate the scan head about the roll axis in a smooth, continuous fashion. The detector array and associated relay and focusing optical elements remain stationary with respect to the aircraft. The image acquired by the scan head assembly would need to be derotated with a pechan prism, K mirror or other suitable element, as described in the [Lareau] '593 patent. Roll motion compensation would be performed electronically in the array, as described at length above. We decline to conclude whether this incorporation by reference is sufficient to "identify with detailed particularity what specific material" is incorporated and "clearly indicate where that material is found in" Lareau, and instead we find that the single document that would result from this incorporation by reference, if it were sufficient, does not anticipate the claimed invention. Partynski's described "roll motion compensation" compensates for effects due to the continuous smooth roll motion of the camera, and is, as paragraph 140 indicates, "described at length" in prior sections of Partynski. Id. ,r,r 126-134. The roll motion compensation is implemented within the array of pixel elements by transferring pixel information row by row "in the same direction of image motion during the exposure time, thereby avoiding image smear due to the roll motion." Id. ,r 129. 7 Appeal2017-003998 Application 11/607 ,511 The Examiner finds that the disclosure in Partynski' s paragraph 140 referencing Lareau's derotation using "a pechan prism, K mirror or other suitable element" teaches or suggests the "motion compensation" limitation of the claim. Non-Final Action 2, 4--5. Appellants argue that Partynski specifically distinguishes between Lareau's derotation and the electronic roll motion compensation described in Partynski, and discloses an embodiment that uses both Lareau's derotation and Partynski's electronic roll motion compensation. Appeal Br. 9 ( quoting Partynski ,r 140). The Examiner finds that the two types of systems discussed in Partnski' s paragraph 140 are "different levels of stabilization of the same type of motion." However, we agree with Appellants that the derotation drive of Lareau ( and thus of the Partynski paragraph 140 embodiment that incorporates it) corrects for rotation within an image, and not for errors associated with the scanning/sweeping in the continuous roll motion described in Partynski. See Appeal Br. 9, Reply Br. 4. We note that Lareau explicitly states that no derotation correction would be necessary if the entire camera were mounted to rotate about the roll axis, or if the camera assembly's imaging array were rotated. Lareau 7:43--45; see Reply Br. 2. Partynski echoes this, disclosing "a variation" on the paragraph 140 embodiment in which "image derotation is achieved by rotation of the imaging array in synchronism with the rotation of the scan head assembly." Partynski ,r 141. However, while image derotation would be achieved by that arrangement, Partynski goes on to explicitly say that in such cases roll motion compensation would still be necessary, and describes how to achieve it. Id. 8 Appeal2017-003998 Application 11/607 ,511 The Examiner finds that "the distinction between derotation and roll motion compensation in paragraph [140] is not different types of motion being compensated, but rather different levels of stabilization of the same type of motion." Answer 9. In light of the specific disclosure in paragraph 140 of Partynski that roll motion compensation occurs "electronically in the array," this argument would more properly be an obviousness argument, combining Lareau's teachings of a mirror providing the only motion compensation with the smooth roll taught in Partynski. Thus, we do not find that Partynski' s paragraph 140 embodiment, which specifically discloses that roll motion compensation is performed electronically as described elsewhere in Partynski, discloses the claimed cancelling-out of the sweeping motion of the field of view during an image exposure via a tilting of a tilt-mirror as recited in claim 1 to satisfy the anticipation rejection thereof. We, therefore, reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of claims 17, 20, 22, and 25-27, which either depend from claim 1 or otherwise recite similar limitations. With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 2 and 3, the Examiner does not rely on any of the additionally cited references to cure the deficiency of the anticipation rejection explained above. See Non-Final Action 6-7. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of these claims for the reasons set forth above in relation to claims 1, 7-9, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 20. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 17, 20, 22, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 as anticipated by Partynski. 9 Appeal2017-003998 Application 11/607 ,511 We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over a combination of Partynski and Marshall. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over a combination of Partynski and Sun. REVERSED 10