Ex Parte Enix

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

13047026 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017)

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.
13/047,026 03/14/2011 Bruce Wayne Enix TRB 0031 PA/41128.62 6081
112760 7590 02/24/2017
Dirwmnre & Shnhl T T P EXAMINER
Fifth Third Center SUN, YULIN
One South Main Street
Dayton, OH 45402-2023 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2017 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):
denise.suter@dinsmore.com
CTCT_IP@Trimble.com
daytonipdocket@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE WAYNE ENIX
Appeal 2016-004276
Application 13/047,0261
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN R. KENNY,
and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—22, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Caterpillar Trimble Control
Technologies LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004276
Application 13/047,026
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a construction machine control system containing
an array of video cameras (33) mounted in a row on a camera support (35)
for scanning a surface adjacent to the path of the machine. Spec. 119, Fig.
1. The cameras are directed downward to define overlapping fields of view
underneath the camera support. Id. In particular, upon receiving from two
or more cameras a captured field of view of the surface (42) below, a
processor (38) determines the relative position of a point of interest on the
surface within the overlapping fields of view of two or more adjacent
cameras to thereby provide control signals to control the movement of the
construction machine with respect to the point of interest. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A system for scanning a surface adjacent the path of a
construction machine, comprising:
a camera support adapted for attachment to a movable
construction machine;
a plurality of video cameras, said cameras being mounted
in a row on said camera support with the cameras being directed
downward to define overlapping fields of view beneath said row;
and
a processor, responsive to said plurality of cameras, for
determining the relative position of a point of interest on a
surface in the overlapping fields of view of at least two adjacent
cameras.
2
Appeal 2016-004276
Application 13/047,026
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4—7, 11—16, and 18—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buehlmann (US 2010/0201994 Al,
published Aug. 12, 2010) and Safaee-Rad (US 2004/0213449 Al, published
Oct. 28, 2004). Fin. Act. 3.
Claims 3, 8—10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Buehlmann, Safaee-Rad, and Davidson (US
4,733,355, issued Mar. 22, 1988). Fin. Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6—13, and the Reply Brief, pages 1—3.2
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as
otherwise indicated below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
Ans. 2—13; Fin. Act. 2—7. However, we highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues the proposed
combination of Buehlmann and Safaee-Rad does not teach or suggest a row
of cameras being directed downward to define overlapping fields of view
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 17, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed March
14, 2016), and the Answer (mailed January 25, 2016) for their respective
details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2016-004276
Application 13/047,026
beneath the row of cameras such that a processor can determine the relative
position of a point of interest on a surface in the overlapping fields of view
of at least two adjacent cameras. App. Br. 10-11. In particular, Appellant
argues Buehlmann’s disclosure of a construction machine equipped with a
camera for taking successive pictures of the ground as the machine moves
teaches a single camera for taking images across the field of view of the
camera, but it does not teach detecting the actual position of a surface
feature in either two or three dimensions. App. Br. 7—8. Further, Appellant
argues although Safaee-Rad discloses a control system with a plurality of
downward looking sensor arrays that detect images on the panel display at a
manufacturing test station, Safaee-Rad teaches adjacent sensor arrays are
arranged such that their respective fields of view overlap narrowly. Id. at 8—
9 (citing Safaee-Rad 145). Therefore, Appellant submits that the disclosed
narrow overlap between the fields of view is not sufficient to determine the
position of reference surfaces. Id. at 9. Additionally, Appellant argues there
is no reasonable motivation to combine the cited references. Id. at 11.
These arguments are not persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Buehlmann discloses a
construction machine equipped with a single camera facing downward to
determine surface characteristics of a part of the ground (including a point of
interest) as the machine moves along the ground. Ans. 7 (citing Buehlmann
H 11, 25—27). We agree with the Examiner that the camera in Buehlmann
not only detects the relative movement of the machine across the surface of
the ground, but also determines the relative position of the machine with
respect to the surface including an object thereon. Id. Further, as correctly
noted by the Examiner, Safaee-Rad discloses adjacent sensor arrays
4
Appeal 2016-004276
Application 13/047,026
providing overlapping fields of view of a point of interest on the ground to
thereby provide different perspectives. Id. at 7—8 (citing Safaee-Rad 1 52).
We agree with the Examiner that because the claim does not require a
specific degree of overlap in the fields of view, any degree of overlap
between the fields of view provided by the cameras will suffice to meet the
disputed claim limitation. Id. at 8—9. Accordingly, because the cited
teachings of Buehlmann and Safaee-Rad are known elements that perform
their ordinary functions to predictably result in a construction machine
equipped with two or more adjacent cameras facing downward to provide
overlapping fields of view of a point of interest on the ground as the
machine is moving thereacross, we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed combination is proper. Id. at 9—10.
Regarding Appellant’s allegation of insufficient rationale for the
proposed combination, the Supreme Court instructs that an obviousness
analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As discussed
above, we find Safaee-Rad’s disclosure of two or more adjacent cameras
mounted on a rod to provide overlapped fields of view of a point of interest
on the ground and Buehlmann’s disclosure of a camera examining an object
on the ground as the machine is travelling in a construction site is no more
than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same
function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would
expect from such an arrangement. Id. at 416. The ordinarily-skilled artisan,
being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would be able to
5
Appeal 2016-004276
Application 13/047,026
fit the teachings of Buehlmann and Safaee-Rad together like pieces of a
puzzle. Id. at 420-21. Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the
Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner
that the proposed modification would have been within the purview of the
ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed
combination of references is supported by sufficient rationale, and teaches
the disputed limitations. Ans. 11—12. We are thus not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 over the combination of
Buehlmann and Safaee-Rad.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 4—7, 11—16, and 18—22, because
Appellant reiterates substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, the cited claims fall therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding the rejection of claims 3, 8—10, and 17, Appellant argues
because Buehlmann recommends mounting the sensor component
underneath the construction machine, positioning the camera support to the
side of the machine goes against the teachings of Buehlmann. App. Br. 12—
13 (citing Buehlmann || 11, 13, 19). This argument is not persuasive. As
correctly noted by the Examiner, Davidson’s teaching of adapting another
camera support to extend to the side of Buehlmann’s construction machine
would merely supplement Buehlmann’s machine with another set of sensors
capable of capturing points of interest along the sides of the construction
machine. Ans. 12. Such an additional set of sensors would in no way go
6
Appeal 2016-004276
Application 13/047,026
against the set of downward facing sensors disclosed in Buehlmann.
Instead, it would complement Buehlmann’s construction machine by
allowing it to acquire a more complete picture of the construction site.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examner’s rejection of claims 3, 8—10,
and 17 over the combination of Davidson, Buehlmann, and Safaee-Rad.
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1—22.
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
7