Ex Parte Floyd et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201713751994 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/751,994 01/28/2013 Joseph F. Floyd B86918 1220US.1 (0044.1) 1791 128836 7590 02/27/2017 Wnmhle Parlvle SanHriHae Rr Rioe T T P EXAMINER Attn: IP Docketing P.O. Box 7037 GARMON, BRIAN Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2017 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): ipdocketing @ wcsr. com patentadmin @ B oeing. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH F. FLOYD, BRENT L. HADLEY, PATRICK J. EAMES, and STEPHEN P. MILLER Appeal 2016-005508 Application 13/751,9941 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—21, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-005508 Application 13/751,994 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to panoptic visualization of elements of a complex system and, in particular, to panoptic visualization of such elements using localization of a point on a physical instance of the complex system, and possibly in a manner that reflects spatial, design or functional relationships between the elements.” Spec. 1:23-26. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for implementation of a system for panoptic visualization of one or more elements of a complex system, the apparatus comprising a processor and a memory storing executable instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the apparatus to implement at least: a localization module configured to receive and process range measurements and odometry data relative to a physical instance of a complex system to calculate an unknown, particular location within a coordinate system of the complex system; a search engine coupled to the localization module and configured to identify a document component of a panoptic visualization document collection having a plurality of document components, each document component of at least some of the document components including respective media content depicting an element of the complex system, and having associated metadata providing structured information reflecting a three-dimensional (3D) geometry of the element within a coordinate system of the complex system, the respective media content of the identified document component depicting an element of the complex system at the particular location or within a volume about or at least in part defined by the particular location; and a layout engine coupled to the search engine and configured to generate a layout of panoptically-arranged visual 2 Appeal 2016-005508 Application 13/751,994 representations of document components including the identified document component and one or more other document components identified according to the associated metadata for the identified document component, which further includes structured information identifying a link between the identified document component and one or more other document components that establishes a logical relationship between the respective media content thereof, wherein the layout is a two-dimensional layout in which the logical relationship is expressed by a difference in size, location or depth of at least some of the visual representations relative to others of the visual representations, and wherein the visual representations of the document components in the layout are images of the document components including the respective media content thereof. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Furumoto et al. (“Furumoto”) US 2004/0153297 A1 Aug. 5, 2004 David Cohn, “Back to Flat — Producing 2D Output from 3D Models,” Autodesk University 2009, AU122-2 (hereinafter “Cohn”). REJECTION Claims 1—21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Furumoto and Cohn. Final Act. 2—20. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have 3 Appeal 2016-005508 Application 13/751,994 considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1—21. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Furumoto teaches or suggests “a localization module configured to receive and process range measurements and odometry data relative to a physical instance of a complex system to calculate an unknown, particular location within a coordinate system of the complex system,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, Furumoto “paragraph [0062] relates to part information including three-dimensional (3D) shape and position information for parts including moving units; and paragraph [0063] relates to display of the 3D shape of each part according to the part information.” App. Br. 9. Appellants argue none of the sections cited by the Examiner teaches or suggest the receipt or processing of range measurements and odometry data as is recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 9— 10; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds “Furumoto discloses determining the shape, position, and information about the movement of the unit. The information is used to find an unknown visual position or location of the unit.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner maps that teaching to the localization module limitation, including the “range measurements and odometry data.” Id.', see also Final Act 20—21; Ans. 21. We have reviewed the cited sections of Furumoto. Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how Furumoto teaches or suggests a localization module to receive and process range measurements and odometry data as recited in claim 1. 4 Appeal 2016-005508 Application 13/751,994 Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s finding that Furumoto teaches the disputed limitation is in error because it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”). Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 8 and 15, which recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitations discussed above, and dependent claims 2—7, 9—14, and 16—21. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—21. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation