The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 11, 2021

2020001795 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2021)

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.
14/548,021 11/19/2014 Robin Mark Adrian Dawson 3898/1023 3257
2101 7590 06/11/2021
Sunstein LLP
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02110-2321
EXAMINER
KHALID, OMER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2021 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):
usptomail@sunsteinlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBIN MARK ADRIAN DAWSON,
JUHA-PEKKA J. LAINE, MURALI V. CHAPARALA,
CHARLES ARANT, and MATTHEW T. JAMULA

Appeal 2020-001795
Application 14/548,021
Technology Center 2400

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6, 7, 9, 12–14, 22–24, 28, and 29.
Appeal Br. 21–25 (Claims App.). Claims 1–5, 8, 10, 11, 15–21, and 25–27
have been canceled. Id. Claims 30 and 31 are objected to as being dependent

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Nov. 19, 2014 (“Spec.”); Non-Final
Office Action, mailed Feb. 4, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
July 31, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Nov. 8, 2019
(“Ans.”), and Reply Brief, filed Jan. 8, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 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 The
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-001795
Application 14/548,021
2
upon a rejected base claim, but would be otherwise allowable if rewritten in
independent form to include the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. Non-Final Act. 16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to star
tracker navigation system (1700) including controller (1600) that matches
image data received from image sensor arrays (912, 914, 918) to bright
navigational stars and associated location data contained in catalog (1606) to
calculate the location of a vehicle. Spec. ¶¶ 7–16, 123. Figure 16,
reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter:

Appeal 2020-001795
Application 14/548,021
3

Figure 16 illustrates star tracker (1700) including image sensor arrays (912,
914, 918) coupled to monocentric objective lens (902) via optical fiber
bundles (904, 906, 910) to provide captured bright star image data to
controller (1600), which calculates the location of a vehicle based on the
comparison of the received image data with bright stars information stored
in catalog (1606). Id. ¶¶ 123–124.

Independent claim 6 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
6. A navigation system, comprising:
a monocentric objective lens having a field of view;
a first optical fiber bundle comprising a first plurality of
optical fibers;
a first image sensor array optically coupled to the lens via
the first optical fiber bundle and configured to receive light, via
the first optical fiber bundle, from a first portion, less than all,
of the field of view;
a second optical fiber bundle comprising a second
plurality of optical fibers;
a second image sensor array optically coupled to the lens
via the second optical fiber bundle and configured to receive,
via the second optical fiber bundle, light from a second portion,
less than all, of the field of view, the second portion being
spatially discontiguous with the first portion;
a catalog; and
a controller communicatively coupled to the first image
sensor array and to the second image sensor array, the
controller being configured to concurrently capture image data
from the first image sensor array and image data from the
second image sensor array and match the image data from the
first image sensor array and the image data from the second
image sensor array to information stored in the catalog to
automatically determine a location of the navigation system.

Appeal Br. 21 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-001795
Application 14/548,021
4

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3
Name Reference Date
McWilliams US 7,518,792 B2 Apr. 14, 2009
Stark US 8,488,257 B2 July 16, 2013
Marks US 2011/0211106 A1 Sept. 1, 2011

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 9, 12–14, 22–24, 28, and 29 as
follows:
Claims 6, 7, 9, 12, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatenable over the combined teachings of Stark, McWilliams, and Marks.
Non-Final Act. 3–10.
Claims 13, 14, and 22–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatenable over the combined teachings of Stark and McWilliams. Non-
Final Act. 10–16.
V. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Stark, McWilliams, and Marks teaches or suggests
“controller being configured to concurrently capture image data … and
match the image data … to information stored in the catalog to
automatically determine a location of the navigation system” as recited in
independent claim 6. Appeal Br. 10–13. In particular, Appellant argues that
Stark’s controller stitching together images obtained from sensors into a

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-001795
Application 14/548,021
5
larger image does not teach matching the images to information stored in a
catalog to automatically determine a vehicle location. Id. at 11. Likewise,
Appellant argues that McWilliams’s disclosure of an automatic telescope
capable of determining its orientation and of aligning itself with a user-
selected star does not cure the admitted deficiencies of Stark. Id. (citing
McWilliams Abstr., 2:2–11). According to Appellant, McWilliams’
controller determining a telescope orientation is different from the location
thereof. Id. at 12–13.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As a preliminary matter, we agree with Appellant that patentable
weight should be given to the recitation of the controller matching received
image data with data stored in the catalog to determine the navigation
system location. Appeal Br. 10. Because the cited limitation requires that the
controller be particularly configured or programmed to determine the vehicle
location, it is more than just a functional limitation or intended use,4 which
can simply be ignored. The Examiner must therefore show that the prior art
teaches a controller that is similarly configured or at least capable of
determining the vehicle location.
Stark relates to an optical imaging system including a controller that
stitches images received from image collection devices to form a larger
image for providing high resolution scene surveillance. Stark 8:41–43, 9:16–
20, 15:29–42. Further, McWilliams relates to an automatic telescope
including a control unit utilizing measured angles to identify bright stars,
which are matched to corresponding location information in a database to

4 See Ans. 18.
Appeal 2020-001795
Application 14/548,021
6
subsequently determine the orientation of the telescope. McWilliams 3:45–
60, 4:49–65.
We do not agree with the Examiner that because Stark teaches
multiple image collection devices and McWilliams teaches comparing
collected stars information in a database to determine telescope orientation,
one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use the devices to determine
location. Ans. 18–22 (citing McWilliams 4:51–55). This conclusion is rather
speculative, and wholly unsupported on the record before us. The Stark-
McWilliams combination would at best result in a controller utilizing
collected information about bright stars observed in the sky to match them
with corresponding location information in the database to subsequently
determine the orientation of the telescope. As persuasively argued by
Appellant, the resulting controller would be able to determine the orientation
of the telescope irrespective of its location. Appeal Br. 12. Because the
record is devoid of any evidence to support that the resulting controller is
configured to or at least capable of determining the location of the telescope,
we agree with Appellant that the proposed combination of Stark,
McWilliams, and Marks does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations of
claim 6.
Because Appellant shows at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 6, we do not reach
Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 6. Likewise, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 7, 9, 12–14, 22–24, 28, and 29, which
also recite the disputed limitations.

Appeal 2020-001795
Application 14/548,021
7
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims
6, 7, 9, 12–14, 22–24, 28, and 29.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6, 7, 9, 12,
28, 29 103
Stark, McWilliams,
Marks
6, 7, 9, 12,
28, 29
13, 14, 22–
24 103 Stark, McWilliams
13, 14, 22–
24
Overall
Outcome
6, 7, 9, 12–
14, 22–24,
28, 29

REVERSED