Ex Parte Foy et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2011

11226463 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2011)

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.
11/226,463 09/15/2005 Donald Foy 2621-10 3757
23117 7590 06/30/2011
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
MARCUS, LELAND R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte DONALD FOY, CHARLES COPELAND, TROY DAWSON, 8
TOM MCELROY, and BOB PRUETT 9
___________ 10
11
Appeal 2010-007797 12
Application 11/226,463 13
Technology Center 3600 14
___________ 15
16
Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and 17
KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges. 18
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. 19
DECISION ON APPEAL 20
21
Appeal 2010-007797
Application 11/226,463

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1
Donald Foy, Charles Copeland, Troy Dawson, Tom McElroy, and Bob 2
Pruett (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a final 3
rejection of claims 1-2 and 6-19, the only claims pending in the application 4
on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 5
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 6
The Appellants invented a method for the automatic capture of 7
photographic images for documenting items including but not limited to 8
motor vehicles, boats, motorcycles and other items for auction or sale. 9
Specification ¶ 0001. 10
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 11
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 12
paragraphing added]. 13
1. A method for automatically capturing one or multiple images of a 14
motor vehicle comprising: 15
[1] moving said motor vehicle into an enclosure; 16
[2] tracking the motor vehicle as it moves into the enclosure; 17
[3] in response to said tracking, automatically closing at least one 18
entry door to provide a controlled environment within the enclosure; 19
[4] automatically measuring the length of said motor vehicle; 20
[5] automatically adjusting the amount of zoom of plural cameras 21
at least in part in response to said measured length; and 22
[6] automatically capturing multiple images of said motor vehicle 23
using said plural cameras with said adjusted amount of zoom. 24
25

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed November 30, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 4,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 4, 2010), and
Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed April 15, 2009).
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 1
Suggs, Sr. US 6,965,324 B1 Nov. 15,2005
Kramer US 2005/0195216 Al Sep. 8, 2005
2
Claims 1-2 and 6-19 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable 3
over Suggs and Kramer. 4
5
ISSUE 6
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-2 and 6-7
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suggs and Kramer turns 8
on whether the combination of Suggs and Kramer describe or suggest 9
limitations [4] and [5] of claim 1. 10
11
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 12
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 13
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 14
Facts Related to the Prior Art 15
Suggs 16
01. Suggs is directed to a processing station and method for the 17
semi-automatic acquisition of photographs and descriptive data for 18
automobiles and other vehicles. Suggs 1:6-8. 19
02. The method begins with a vehicle entering a work station and 20
parks when it comes in contact with stoppers. Suggs 3:62-64. 21
Stoppers are movable such that they can be positioned according 22
to the vehicle size. Suggs 3:64-67. The positioning of the 1
stoppers may be performed manually by an operator or 2
automatically using a motor controlled by a computer. Suggs 4:1-3
5. An ultrasonic sensor or an optical path sensor may be used to 4
detect the position of the vehicle’s tire to position the vehicle 5
appropriately. Suggs 4:5-10. 6
03. Images of the vehicle are captured by cameras. Suggs 6:28-32. 7
Each camera’s focus may be adjusted from a computer. Suggs 4: 8
28-31. A user may adjust the cameras, such as height or focus, 9
and recapture images. Suggs 6:34-36. 10
Kramer 11
04. Kramer is directed to systems, methods, and apparatuses for 12
capturing, processing and displaying images. Kramer ¶ 0002. 13
05. Kramer describes the prior art includes lenticular technology that 14
allows for interactive effects, such as a zoom effect, to be 15
perceived by a user. Kramer ¶ 0018. 16
06. The system delivers a set of images to a user in a form with 17
which the user can undertake a variety of interactive functions. 18
Kramer ¶ 0020. The interactive functions include zooming in or 19
out of an object depicted in the currently viewable image layer. 20
Kramer ¶ 0027. 21
07. The system further employs various types of devices for image 22
capturing, such as various types of enclosures, kiosk, and photo 23
booths outfitted with one or more cameras so that the camera can 24
acquire multiple images of a stationary object. Kramer ¶ 0028. 25
1
ANALYSIS 2
Claims 1-2 and 6-19 rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suggs 3
and Kramer 4
The Appellants first contend that (1) Suggs fail to describe automatically 5
measuring the length or dimension of the motor vehicle and using said 6
measured length or dimension to control camera zoom, as required by 7
limitations [4] and [5] of claim 1. App. Br. 12-14 and Reply Br. 2-4. We 8
agree with the Appellants. 9
Suggs describes a system that includes a station and cameras for 10
acquiring photographs and descriptive data for automobiles and other 11
vehicles. FF 01. The system uses movable stoppers that are positioned 12
based on vehicle size. FF 02. 13
However, there is nothing in Suggs that teaches or suggests that the 14
ultrasonic or optical path sensors measure the length or other dimensions of 15
a motor vehicle. The Examiner found that “[i]n order to automatically 16
position the stoppers, the system must know the length of the vehicle”. Ans. 17
10. The Examiner explained that “the ultrasonic or optical sensor cited in 18
the Rejection is used to determine the length of the vehicle in order to ensure 19
that the vehicle is properly positioned.” Id. It is unnecessary, however, to 20
measure the length of a vehicle to position the stoppers, it is merely 21
necessary to identify the physical positions where the stoppers should go. 22
In fact, Suggs positions stoppers only at the front of the car, and then only in 23
some embodiments. Since the purpose of the stoppers is simply to indicate 24
where to park, and Suggs’ workspace is manually adjustable in size, there is 25
no need to measure the length of a vehicle to place the stoppers. As to the 1
ultrasonic sensor, that is Suggs’ alternative to the stopper as a way of telling 2
a driver where to park, not Suggs’ means for positioning the stopper. At 3
best there may be a need to adjust stopper placement in gross terms based on 4
the relative size of a vehicle, but this would not require measurement, only 5
visual inspection, and with Suggs, would presumably done by a human 6
operator either manually or by instructing a computer to operate a motor. 7
We find no evidence in Suggs that describes or suggests that the length 8
or other dimensions of a motor vehicle are measured. Since Suggs fails to 9
describe or suggest measuring the length or other dimensions of a motor 10
vehicle, the combination of Suggs and Kramer fails to describe 11
automatically adjusting the amount of zoom of a camera based on the 12
measured length, as required by limitation [5]. 13
Absent of any evidence or rationale illustrating that the combination of 14
Suggs and Kramer describe or suggest limitations [4] and [5] of claim 1, we 15
find that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established. Since 16
this issue is dispositive as to the rejections against these claims, we need not 17
reach the remaining arguments raised by the Appellants against these 18
rejections. 19
20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 21
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-2 and 6-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 22
103(a) as unpatentable over Suggs and Kramer. 23
24
DECISION 1
To summarize, our decision is as follows. 2
 The rejection of claims 1-2 and 6-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 3
unpatentable over Suggs and Kramer is not sustained. 4
5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 6
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 7
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 8
9
REVERSED 10
11
12
13
14
ke 15
16
17