Ex Parte Genc et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13527114 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/527,114 06/19/2012 Yakup Gene 2011P16920US01 5445
28524 7590 02/02/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
JEAN BAPTISTE, JERRY T
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YAKUP GENC, YING ZHU, MATHAUS DEJORI, and
FRANK DIERKES1
Appeal 2016-004316
Application 13/527,114
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—11 and 13—21. Claim 12 has been canceled. Final Act. 2. We
have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to monitoring parking spots. Spec.,
Abstract. A vehicle includes a camera for generating image data of parking
1 Appellants identify Siemens Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-004316
Application 13/527,114
spots. Id. The image data is processed along with data from a laser scanner
to determine an occupation status of a parking spot. Id.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative:
1. A system to monitor a parking spot, comprising:
a remote computer to receive data related to the parking spot;
a first vehicle comprising:
a camera to generate image data of a parking spot;
a location device that generates geographic coordinates
of the vehicle;
a computing device that receives the image data
generated by the camera and the geographic coordinates of the
first vehicle and provides a time stamp and a compass heading
of the camera;
a communication device that transmits data related to the
parking spot to the remote computer; and
a laser scanner range finder calibrated with the camera on
the first vehicle and oriented to scan the parking spot and
generate a scan; and
wherein the remote computer is enabled to inform a
second computing device of an occupation status of the parking
spot, and wherein the occupation status is based in part on the
scan being indicative of an area of the image generated by the
camera relative to a predetermined area of the parking spot.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 6—11, and 13—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sonnabend et al. (US 2014/0132767 Al; May 15,
2014) (“Sonnabend”) and Shirmila Mohottala et al., Fusion of a Camera and
a Laser Range Sensor for Vehicle Recognition, 2009 IEEE Computer
2
Appeal 2016-004316
Application 13/527,114
Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Workshops, 2009, at 16—19 (“Mohottala”). Final Act. 4—14.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sonnabend, Mohottala, and Reem Zeibak et al., Change
Detection via Terrestrial Laser Scanning, ISPRS Workshop on Laser
Scanning 2007 and Silvilaser 2007, Sept. 2007, at 430, 432, and 434
(“Zeibak”). Final Act. 15—16.
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this Decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the
Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions of Examiner error
(App. Br. 6—12; Reply Br. 4—9). We adopt as our own the Examiner’s
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—16) and as set forth by the Examiner in the
Answer (Ans. 2—19). However, we highlight and address specific arguments
and findings for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1—4, 6—11, and 13—21
Claim 1 recites, in part, “a computing device that receives the image
data generated by the camera . . . and provides a time stamp and a compass
heading of the camera.” The Examiner finds Sonnabend discloses this
feature. Final Act. 6 (citing Sonnabend 196, 272, 285, Figs. 34, 35).
Appellants argue Sonnabend fails to disclose the recited compass heading of
the camera (App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 5—6), specifically asserting paragraph
3
Appeal 2016-004316
Application 13/527,114
272 of Sonnabend teaches storing compass heading data in a database, but
argue Sonnabend does not teach providing compass heading data of a
camera as claimed (App. Br. 10).
Appellants’ contentions are unpersuasive of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, “paragraph 272 discloses the compass
heading data of the video capture (via a camera) is stored in a system; in
other words a compass heading data of a video capture/camera has to be
obtained or acquired if said data is going to be stored in a system.” Ans. 15.
Paragraph 272 of Sonnabend (emphasis added) clearly recites “the compass
heading data of the video capture is also stored in the system.”2 By
disclosing storing the compass heading data of the video capture, Sonnabend
teaches or suggests providing the video capture. Thus, a compass heading
data of video capture suggests providing a compass heading data of the
device that captures the video (the claimed “camera”). Accordingly, we find
Sonnabend suggests providing a compass heading of a camera as claimed.
Claim 1 also recites a remote computer informs a second computing
device of “an occupation status of the parking spot, and wherein the
occupation status is based in part on the scan being indicative of an area of
the image generated by the camera relative to a predetermined area of the
parking spot.” The Examiner finds Sonnabend discloses a system for
detecting parking spots and their occupancy status and finds paragraph 184
discloses a “camera management system can control the camera, for
2 Sonnabend paragraph 272 erroneously refers to Figure 35 but clearly
describes Figure 34. A number of similar typographic errors appear in
Sonnabend’s brief descriptions of its figures. Regardless of the typographic
errors, paragraph 272 still discloses provision of a compass heading of the
camera as recited in claim 1.
4
Appeal 2016-004316
Application 13/527,114
example.. .recognizing open parking spots...” Final Act. 6 (citing
Sonnabend 17, 29). The Examiner further finds Sonnabend teaches
determining “open/vacant parking spot[s]” based on an image generated by a
camera. Ans. 16 (citing Sonnabend 1147). However, the Examiner relies
on Mohottala, in combination with Sonnabend, for expressly disclosing a
camera for generating an image of a parking spot and a laser range sensor
for scanning the imaged parking spot. Id. at 7—8; see also Ans. 17 (citing
Mohottala, 17—19). .
Appellants argue paragraph 184 of Sonnabend does not teach
“determining an occupation status based on a[n] image generated by a
camera relative to a predetermined image of the parking spot.” App. Br. 10.
Appellants further argue the Examiner’s assertion is inconsistent with the
Examiner’s finding that Sonnabend does not disclose a camera or a laser
scanner calibrated with the camera to scan parking spots. Id. at 11 (citing
Final Act. 6). Furthermore, Appellants argue paragraph 147 of Sonnabend
does not disclose how Sonnabend’s camera management system utilizes a
camera or mobile device “to determine any open spots, vacant spots,
recently vacated spots, valet only sites etc.” Reply Br. 7. Appellants further
contend, “nothing in Moho is concerned with determining occupation status
of [a] parking space.” Id. at 8.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred at least because Appellants’
arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection but, instead,
improperly attack the references individually rather than addressing the
combined teachings. See, e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In
re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the Examiner relies
on paragraphs 17, 29, 147, and 184 of Sonnabend to teach a system that
5
Appeal 2016-004316
Application 13/527,114
determines “open/vacant parking spot[s]” based on an image generated by a
camera. Final Act. 6—8; Ans. 16—18. The Examiner finds Sonnabend fails
to expressly disclose using a laser scanner and a camera together to scan
parking spots. Final Act. 6. Therefore, the Examiner relies on Mohottala,
not Sonnabend, to expressly teach “a laser scanner and a camera to scan and
generate image data of on-street parked vehicles.” Ans. 17; see also Final
Act. 7—8 (citing Mohottala, 17—19); see also Mohottala, 18 (§ 3 discussing
calibration of laser and image data). The Examiner finds, and we agree,
The teachings of Sonnabend are directed to [an] integrated
parking information collection system and Mohottala is directed
to a system that fuses data from a vision sensor and laser sensor
for detection and classification. A person having reasonable skill
in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of
Sonnabend and Mohottala in order to provide a highly accurate
and reliable means for detecting on-street parked vehicles
(Mohottala, abstract).
Ans. 18.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claim 11,
which recites similar limitations and was argued together with claim 1.
Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2-4,
6—10, and 13—21, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 11.
Claim 5
Appellants do not separately argue with particularity the rejection of
claim 5 (dependent from claim 1) and, thus, we sustain the rejection of
claim 5. See App. Br. 11—12.
6
Appeal 2016-004316
Application 13/527,114
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—11 and 13—21.
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