Ex Parte Holicki et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 201613091664 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/091,664 04/21/2011 23911 7590 05/19/2016 CROWELL & MORING LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP P.O. BOX 14300 WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael HOLICKI 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. 010409.63501US 5048 EXAMINER YANG, WEI WEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2667 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2016 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): edocket@crowell.com tche@crowell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL HOLICKI, NIKOLAUS SCHWEYER, JOHANNES SPETH, and JUERGEN ZOZ Appeal2014-008869 Application 13/091,664 Technology Center 2600 Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-008869 Application 13/091,664 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The application is directed to "[a] method for determining the position data of a target object in a reference system from an observation position at a distance." (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 8, reproduced below, are illustrative: 1. A method comprising the steps of: a) receiving, by a reconnaissance device, a three-dimensional reference model of surroundings of a target object, the three- dimensional reference model including known geographical location data; b) matching, by the reconnaissance device, an image of the target object and its surroundings, captured by the reconnaissance device from an observation position for an observer, with the reference model; c) determining, by the reconnaissance device, position data of the target object in the reference model as relative position data with respect to the known geographic location data of the reference model; and d) transmitting, by the reconnaissance device, the relative position data to an airborne weapon system, wherein the reconnaissance device is independent of the airborne weapon system. 1 Appellants identify LFK-Lenkflugkoerpersysteme GmbH as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 3.) 2 Appeal2014-008869 Application 13/091,664 8. A method comprising the steps of: receiving, by an airborne weapon system from an independent reconnaissance device, position data of a target object in a three- dimensional reference model as relative position data with respect to known geographic location data of the reference model; aa) recording an image of the target object and its surroundings, using an imaging device provided onboard the airborne weapon system; bb) matching, by the airborne weapon system, the image obtained in step aa) with the three-dimensional reference model; cc) determining, by the airborne weapon system, position data of the imaging device provided on board the airborne weapon system relative to the position data of the target object; and dd) guiding a missile to the target object using a position of the missile relative to the target object ascertained in step cc). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Han et al. Gravseth et al. US 2006/0120590 Al US 8,306,273 B 1 June 8, 2006 Nov. 6, 2012 Liang-Chien Chen et al., Building Reconstruction fi·om LID AR Data and Aerial Imagery, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 2846-2849 (2005) THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Han. (See Final Act. 6-7.) 2. Claims 1 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Han and Gravseth. (See Final Act. 7-11.) 3 Appeal2014-008869 Application 13/091,664 3. Claims 2--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Han, Gravseth, and Chen. (See Final Act. 11-15.) ANALYSIS Anticipation of Claims 8-10 Han describes "IR image correlation within the assignee's Joint Air- to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), a long-range standoff device designed for precision strikes on high-value targets." (Han i-f 26.) "During the terminal phase of the missile flight, the Automatic Target Correlator (ATC) of the [Han] invention uses IR seeker video and a pre-stored reference model to identify and pinpoint the target aim-point within the field-of-view (POV) for terminal guidance of the missile." (Id.) "The reference models used in JASSM missions for target correlation are first loaded into the missiles in a compressed data format," where "[t]he purpose of applying the data compression technique to the JASSM reference model data is to reduce the amount of data transferred from the aircraft to the missile because of the space limitations of a standard loading cartridge currently used." (Id. i-fi-137- 38.) Han also describes that his invention "can be applied to the area of scene identification" where, "[f]or example, given a model of a target area with buildings or structures, the invention can identify and sort out the target area within images covering large ground regions, which are either collected by satellite or by high-flying airplane." (Id. i-f 298.) Appellants argue that Han does not anticipate claim 8 because it does not teach "receiving, by an airborne weapon system from an independent reconnaissance device, position data of a target object in a three-dimensional 4 Appeal2014-008869 Application 13/091,664 reference model as relative position data with respect to known geographic location data of the reference model." (App. Br. 7.) The Examiner finds that Han's "satellite or high-flying airplane are considered to be the reconnaissance device, and the missile is considered carrying the airborne weapon system." (Ans. 12.) We agree with Appellants, however, that Han's reference to "the satellite or high-flying airplane" is insufficient and cannot support an anticipation rejection. Although Han describes "a pre-stored reference model" in the missile, and that a model may be "transferred from the aircraft to the missile," Han does not describe that the model is received from "the satellite or high-flying airplane." Instead, Han's paragraph 37 explains that the transferring takes place in the case of "reference models used in JASSM missions for target correlation," which is not necessarily the same as the "scene identification" application described in paragraph 298. In particular, it is not clear that the "aircraft" of paragraph 3 8 is the same as the "satellite or high-flying airplane" of paragraph 298.2 Moreover, even if these separate disclosures could be used together, they would, at best, describe a system in which the airplane (a) provides a model to the missile and (b) provides images to the missile. Receiving a model and receiving images, however, is not the same as receiving "position data of a target object in a three-dimensional reference model as relative position data with respect to known geographic location data of the reference model." The images, even if fairly viewed as including "position data of a target object" have not been shown to include "relative 2 For example, there is no explanation of how, if these disclosures relate to a single embodiment, the images from the satellite or high-flying airplane relate to the missile's onboard imaging. 5 Appeal2014-008869 Application 13/091,664 position data with respect to known geographic location data of the reference model." (Cf Spec. i-f 30 ("Together with the known geographical position data of the observation position, the distance from the target that is measured by the laser range finder, and the direction of the observation position with respect to the target object, the target point that is defined by the relative position data of the target object in the reference model may be determined.").) For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejections of claims 8-10. We do not reach Appellants' other arguments concerning non-anticipation. Obviousness of Claims 1-7 Claim 1 requires that the receiving, matching, and determining steps are performed by the "reconnaissance device," which is "independent of the airborne weapon system," and that the resulting relative position data be transmitted to the airborne weapon system. As Appellants point out, however, Han's matching and determining are performed within the missile, not in a separate device or system. (See, e.g., Han i-f 26 ("IR image correlation within the assignee's Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile").) Although the Examiner states that "such matching input image and 30 reference model is performed by a reconnaissance device, such as the satellite or by high-flying airplane" (Ans. 16), there is no supporting citation and we find no such disclosure in the reference. Because the combination does not teach or suggest matching an image with a model and determining target position data in a reconnaissance device that is independent of an airborne weapon system, and as there is no finding that it would have been obvious to move that processing from the missile to 6 Appeal2014-008869 Application 13/091,664 the plane, we decline to sustain the Section 103 rejections of claims 1-7, without reaching Appellants' other arguments. DECISION The rejections of claims 1-10 are reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation