Ex Parte Goodman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2016

13554611 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/554,611 07/20/2012 Vernon R. Goodman
18227 7590 09/12/2016
Cantor Colburn LLP - Raytheon
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09El05-US-NP 4194
EXAMINER
HE,WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2016 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):
USPTOPatentMail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VERNON R. GOODMAN
Appeal2015-007105
Application 13/554,611
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-007105
Application 13/554,611
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns "enhancing images obtained
from Geiger mode Avalanche PhotoDiode detectors using three-dimensional
statistical differencing." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent.
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for processing XYZ point cloud of a scene
acquired by a Geiger-mode avalanche photodiode (GmAPD)
Laser radar sensor (LAD AR), comprising the steps of:
voxelizing and defocusing, with a low pass filter, the XYZ
point cloud obtained from the GmAPD LADAR on a computing
device to produce a voxelized and defocused (VD) point cloud;
and
displaying an image of the VD point cloud.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4--15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Cho et al., "Real-Time 3D Ladar Imaging," 16 Lincoln
Laboratory J. 147 (2006) ("Cho") and Modesto et al., "Focusing and
Defocusing Vision System (SIVEDI)," Proc. of the 15th Int'l Conf. on
Electronics, Comm. & Computers (2005) ("Modesto") 1.
Claims 3 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cho, Modesto, and Yu et al. (US 2011/0286651 Al; Nov.
24, 2011).
1 Modesto lacks page numbers. We treat Modesto as if it were numbered
beginning with its first page.
2
Appeal2015-007105
Application 13/554,611
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the cited art teaches away from the invention
recited in the independent claims. See Br. 5---6. In particular, Appellant
asserts that independent claims 1, 13, and 14 each recite defocusing "with a
low pass filter," but both Cho and Modesto disclose using a high-pass filter.
Id. Therefore, according to Appellant, although Modesto discloses that it
was known to use low-pass filters, "if one of ordinary skill in the art
considered both references he would be motivated to use a high pass filter,
not the claimed low pass filter." Id. at 6.
We find Appellant's argument unpersuasive. "A reference may be
said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellant has not identified a persuasive reason that the cited art would have
discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from using a low-pass filter in the
claimed manner. Rather, Appellant has simply pointed out that the cited art
disclose an alternative to a low-pass filter. That is insufficient to establish
that the cited art teaches away from the claimed invention. See In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior art's mere disclosure of
more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of
these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed .... ").
The Examiner found (and we agree) that Modesto teaches that it was
known to use a low-pass filter to defocus. See Ans. 3 (citing Modesto 3).
The Examiner found "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
3
Appeal2015-007105
Application 13/554,611
in the art at the time of the invention to combine the invention of Cho with
the teaching of Modesto so as to initiate a noise reduction by a low-pass
filtering process." Final Act. 4 (citing Modesto 6); see also id. 10-11.
Because we disagree with Appellant that the cited art teaches away from this
combination and Appellant has not presented any other arguments, we see
no reason to disturb the Examiner's rejections. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of 1-20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4