AeroVironment, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2021

2021001692 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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.
16/258,034 01/25/2019 Quentin Lindsey AERO-VI1707 2447
68236 7590 03/16/2021
Concept IP LLP
11601 Wilshire Blvd.
Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025
EXAMINER
GRANT II, JEROME
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patents@brooksacordia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte QUENTIN LINDSEY
___________

Appeal 2021-001692
Application 16/258,034
Technology Center 2600
____________

JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Aero Vironment, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001692
Application 16/258,034

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Disclosed embodiments of Appellant’s invention relate to “image
stitching of aerial images.” Spec. 1, ll. 13–14.
Representative Claim
1. A method comprising:
defining a geographic area;
receiving a plurality of images, wherein at least a portion of each
received image is within the defined geographic area;
determining a plurality of image points, wherein each image point is a
geographic location of a center field of view of each image of the received
plurality of images;
partitioning the geographic area into a plurality of image regions
based on the plurality of image points, wherein each pixel in each image
region is closer to a closest image point of the plurality of image points than
any other image point of the plurality of image points; and
stitching the plurality of images into a combined image based on the
plurality of image regions, wherein each pixel in the combined image is
selected from its corresponding image region.

Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 23.
Rejections on Appeal
A. Claims 1–8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dickrell, III et al. (US 2017/0032524 A1, published
Feb. 2, 2017 hereinafter “Dickrell” or “Dickrell III”) in view of Li (US
2018/0373931 A1, published Dec. 27, 2018).

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed Mar. 23, 2020 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Aug. 21, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and the Answer,
mailed Oct. 29, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2021-001692
Application 16/258,034

3
B. Claims 9 and 11–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Li in view of Dickrell.
C. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Li in view of Dickrell and further in view of Sasaki et al.
(US 2016/0217582 A1, published July 28, 2016 hereinafter “Sasaki”).
Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, and our discretion under
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of § 103 Rejections A, B,
and C of claims 1–20 on the basis of representative claim 1.
ANALYSIS
In reaching this Decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In rejecting claim 1, inter alia, the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Dickrell and Li. Final Act. 2–4, 13–18 (citing Dickrell Figure
2, ¶¶ 12, 15, and 17; Li Figure 4, ¶¶ 87, 88, and 90).
In particular, the Examiner finds:
The present invention seems to center around the use of a well known
principle, namely the Voronoi diagram. Even the title of the invention
gives way that the invention uses the Voronoi diagram in order to find
points in segmented images whose boundaries are equidistant with
respect to the nearest center. For that reason, the examiner used the
Dickrell III patent which clearly teaches the application of the
Voronoi diagram in the same manner as the present invention.
It appears that the present invention sections an image into a plurality
of images and finds the center of those images. The Voronoi principle
is later applied. This process is exactly taught by Dickrell III with the
Appeal 2021-001692
Application 16/258,034

4
exception that the image platform is biological tissue and the present
invention is directed to an agricultural field. In other words, in
Dickrell III, a plurality of images (called sub-regions) are taken from
one image. In like manner, the present invention takes an image and
defines a plurality of images within the large image. The Voronoi
principle is then applied in Dickrell III, in the same manner as the
present invention. The applicant appears to argue that there is novelty
in that the Voronoi principle is used in geography whereas Dickrell III
illustrates the application in biology.
. . .
Li is directed to geography, namely peering at the images of tiles from
several feet above a neighborhood of houses. The examiner contends
that looking at a house, its trees, the street and every item surrounding
the house, constitutes geography.
. . .
Dickrell III may be combined with Li for the reason that both are
directed toward imaging devices and using imagers to view and
process images.
. . .
Li is used mainly to show that the images under process could have
been processed using the [Voronoi] principle in the same way that
image data is used to process the biological images using the
[Voronoi] diagram taught by Dickrell III.

Final Act. 13–15 (emphases added).

The Examiner also finds (i) “the use of Voronoi diagrams by
definition, includes all pixels within the region to be closer to the center
point than any other point in the plurality of segmented image regions”
(Final Act. 2, emphasis added); (ii) “it is well established that Voronoi
diagrams have widespread applications in a variety of fields which include
but are not limited to geophysical and medical applications:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram” (Ans. 17); and
(iii) “Appellant is using a well known mathematical relation, Voronoi
diagrams, which was known and used in medical imaging and now attempts
Appeal 2021-001692
Application 16/258,034

5
to take the same concept for use in surveillance imaging. Both Dickrell and
the present invention use Voronoi diagrams in images to minimize
computation errors in stitching.” (Ans. 19).
In other words, the Examiner has taken Official Notice of the fact that
by definition, Voronoi diagrams include all pixels within the region to be
closer to the center point than any other point in the plurality of segmented
image regions. We note that Appellant does not state why the supposedly
noticed fact about a Voronoi diagram is not considered to be common
knowledge or well known in the art. Further, Appellant did not rebut the
Examiner’s finding that Voronoi diagrams teach that all pixels within the
region are closer to the center point than any other point in the plurality of
segmented image regions.
We have considered Appellant’s numerous and repetitive arguments
on pages 8 through 21 of the Appeal Brief. We have reviewed the
Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s arguments on pages 17 through 27 of
the Answer. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and, unless otherwise
noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and explanations set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. Among
other things, we note that Appellant does not respond in a Reply Brief to the
Examiner’s additional findings and explanations. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments regarding representative claim 1 for
emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2021-001692
Application 16/258,034

6
Appellant argues Dickrell does not teach a defined geographic area.
Appeal Br. 8–10. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because
Appellant is arguing the references separately when the rejection is for
obviousness based upon what the references in combination would have
suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are
based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981). The Examiner cites Li, not Dickrell, for teaching or
suggesting “defin[ed] geographic area.” Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues Dickrell is non-analogous art because “Dickrell is
directed to imaging blood vessels on a proton-level of a human eye, heart,
lung, or the like.” Appeal Br. 12–13.
Our reviewing court has recently discussed analogous art. See
Donner Technology, LLC v Pro-Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The scope of the prior art includes all analogous art.”).
Donner held the following:
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Whether a reference is analogous art is an issue of
fact. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1378
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
Donner, 979 F.3d at 1359. Further, “[a]lthough the dividing line between
reasonable pertinence and less-than-reasonable pertinence is context
dependent, it ultimately rests on the extent to which the reference of interest
and the claimed invention relate to a similar problem or purpose.” Id.
Appeal 2021-001692
Application 16/258,034

7
In our view, Dickrell is broadly in the same field of endeavor as the
method recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds “Dickrell teaches stitching
the plurality of images in reference to the language referred to ‘the
interconnected-ness of the regions’. See paragraph 17.” Ans. 7, 10. We
agree. The present Specification on page 1 describes the field of endeavor as
“image stitching, and more particularly to image stitching of aerial
images.” Dickrell relates to “objects that contain a flow field and whose
features appear to develop randomly,” including rivers and
streams. Dickrell ¶¶ 1–2, 10, 15–17. Dickrell analyzes images of “a flow
stream that contains a flow field such as . . . an[] image of a river taken from
a satellite.” Id. ¶ 10. In Dickrell, the analysis may be “used to repair other
flow systems (e.g., streams and rivers that have been damaged from floods,
droughts, and the like).” Id. ¶ 17. The Examiner’s findings are supported by
the record, and we find the citations show how Dickrell falls broadly in the
same field of endeavor. Thus, we are persuaded that Dickrell is analogous
art.
Concerning Appellant’s argument that “Dickrell does not disclose or
suggest defining a plurality of image points, where the image point is a
geographic location of a center field of view of each image,” (Appeal Br. 9
(emphasis omitted, italics added)), we agree with the Examiner that Figure 2
of Dickrell explicitly teaches “a plurality of image points wherein each point
is the center field of view for each image region, and by definition of
Voronoi mathematical relations, each pixel in each region is closer to the
center point in that region than it is from any other center point of another
region.” Ans. 21 (emphasis omitted, italics added).
Appeal 2021-001692
Application 16/258,034

8
As to Appellant’s contention that “Dickrell does not disclose or
suggest receiving a plurality of images, wherein at least a portion of each
received image is within the defined geographic area” (Appeal Br. 10,
(emphasis added)), we agree with the Examiner that “paragraphs, 24-27 [of
Dickrell] clearly teach obtaining a plurality of sub-region images within one
image, see figure 2.” Ans. 23.
Appellant also argues the cited references are not properly combined
by the Examiner. The Examiner finds, and we agree:
while Dickrell is directed to images of the anatomy, although making
references to “streams and rivers” (At para. 15, lines 1-5, paragraph
17, last three lines and at figure 1), Dickrell did not specifically state
that the images using the Voronoi diagram were geographical. Hence,
the examiner relied on the Li reference which taught using aerial
photography for capturing geographical images as Appellant claims.
The examiner further argued that since Dickrell and Li both received
plural images, one could substitute the geographic images obtained by
Li for the anatomical ones (making reference to geographical
elements, para. 15, lines 1-5, para. 17 last three lines) as taught by
Dickrell for performing the Voronoi mathematical relation to obtain
the minimization of errors in processing multiple neighboring images
generated by scanning devices.
. . .
Li was combined with Dickrell to show that geographic images could
be obtained by Li and similarly processed using Voronoi as was
taught by Dickrell. Li teaches at steps 304 and 310 where data is
acquired from a UAV having traveled to a specific site, such as a
house. Clearly traveling to a house and taking several images of a
house constitutes geographic information. The UAV travels to the
destination to obtain aerial photos according to parameters
programmed to it from a designated party (insurance company).
Hence, Li clearly teaches obtaining geographic aerial photos, see
figures 4-6.

Ans. 23–24.

Appeal 2021-001692
Application 16/258,034

9
On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s proffered
combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). The Supreme Court further guides that “familiar
items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.” KSR, 550
U.S. at 402.
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach
or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellant’s arguments for the remaining rejected claims,
we have considered all of Appellant’s arguments on pages 13 through 21 of
the Appeal Brief. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt as
our own: (1) the findings and legal conclusions set forth by the Examiner in
the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the findings,
legal conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer in response to
Appellant’s arguments. (Final Act. 2–13; Act. 25–27).
For example, regarding Appellant’s contentions for claim 20, we
agree with the Examiner that “Appellant has rehashed all of the arguments
from i) - xi) which have been addressed [above] in this Examiner’s Answer.”
Ans. 27. Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding
the Examiner’s rejections of the remaining claims on appeal.
Appeal 2021-001692
Application 16/258,034

10
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–20 as being obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over the combined teachings and suggestions of the
cited references.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Rej Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
A 1–8, 20 103 Dickrell, Li 1–8, 20
B 9, 11–19 103 Li, Dickrell 9, 11–19
C 10 103 Li, Dickrell, Sasaki 10
Overall
Outcome
1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED