Ex Parte Mas et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201310817900 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013) 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. 10/817,900 04/06/2004 Francisco Rovira Mas 025244-0102 (16357D1) 2918 30542 7590 09/26/2013 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER RASHIDIAN, MOHAMMAD M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2666 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2013 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 ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte FRANCISCO ROVIRA MAS, QIN ZHANG, and JOHN FRANKLIN REID1 ________________ Appeal 2011-003827 Application 10/817,900 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Deere & Company is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-003827 Application 10/817,900 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Invention Appellants invented a system and method for creating three- dimensional agricultural field scene maps, the system and method comprising producing a pair of images using a stereo camera and creating a disparity images based on the pair of images, the disparity image being a three-dimensional representation of the stereo images. See Spec., Abstract. Exemplary Claim (Emphasis Added) 1. An apparatus for creating a 3-dimensional field scene map, comprising: at least one camera for producing a pair of images of the field scene; and means for creating a disparity image from the pair of images; wherein the disparity image comprises a 3-dimensional image encoded with x, y, and z coordinates relative to the at least one camera; and the creating of the 3-dimensional map comprises determining at least one of a camera to ground distance and a camera tilt angle. Rejections The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 18–20 under a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection as Appeal 2011-003827 Application 10/817,900 3 being unpatentable over copending Application number 10/817,901.2 Ans. 5–7. The Examiner rejects claims 1–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 3–4. The Examiner rejects claims 1–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Ta-Te Lin, Wei-Jung Chen, and Fu-Ming Lu, Integration of a Spatial Mapping System Using GPS and Stereo Machine Vision, paper number 021195 and presentation, 2002 ASAE Annual International Meeting and CIGR XVth World Congress, Chicago, Illinois (July 2002) (“Lin”). Ans. 8–18. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the Specification does not disclose “the creating of the 3-dimensional map comprises determining at least one of a camera to ground distance,” as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Lin discloses “the creating of the 3-dimensional map comprises determining at least one of a camera to ground distance,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph The Examiner finds that claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because “[n]owhere in the [S]pecification as 2 Appellants do not present arguments or evidence showing error in the Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double-patenting rejection. See App. Br. 6. Accordingly, we pro forma affirm this rejection. Appeal 2011-003827 Application 10/817,900 4 originally filed [is there] a disclosure of how the camera to ground distance (D) (one dimensional coordinate) is used in the creation of the 3 dimensional map.” Ans. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the Specification merely “discloses that the camera coordinates Xc, Yc, and Zc are transformed to the ground coordinates X, Y, and Z and used for creating the 3D map.” Id. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the Specification describes the use of camera to ground distance (i.e., camera height) to effect coordinate transformation. See App. Br. 9 (citing Spec., ¶¶ [0087] and [0101]). Appellants’ argument is supported by examples in the Specification in which the values X, Y, and Z (i.e., 3-dimensional coordinates) are ascertained through matrix operations that include the use of D (i.e., height of the camera or distance camera-ground) or hc (i.e., camera height). See Spec., ¶¶ [0087] and [0101]. The Examiner’s findings do not address these disclosures. See Ans. 3–4. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that the Specification does not disclose “the creating of the 3-dimensional map comprises determining at least one of a camera to ground distance,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2–28 which are similarly rejected. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) The Examiner finds that Lin discloses “the creating of the 3- dimensional map comprises determining at least one of a camera to ground distance and a camera tilt angle,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 9 (citing Lin, slides 6, 12, 14, p. 4, ll. 10–30, p. 7, ll. 1–10, pp. 8–10, and figs. 6–7). Specifically, the Examiner notes that Lin discloses distance measurement Appeal 2011-003827 Application 10/817,900 5 with a stereo machine vision system. See Ans. 9. The Examiner also finds that Lin discloses a three-dimensional digital map that includes the distance of a camera to ground. Id. Thus, the Examiner relies on Lin to disclose the use of “a camera to ground distance” in creating a three-dimensional map. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Lin relates to the use of two-dimensional stereo cameras to calculate a distance to a target, not to the distance between a camera and the ground. See App. Br. 11. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner’s findings do not show that the cited disclosures in Lin teach the use of camera to ground distance. For example, Lin provides a schematic diagram on slide 6 and a block diagram on slide 14 that show the use of position data from a GPS (global positioning system), orientation information from an electronic compass, and image data from dual cameras providing stereo machine vision in a spatial mapping system. However, the distance between a camera and the ground is not depicted as a source of information for the spatial mapping system. See Lin, slides 6 and 14. The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments by finding that Lin discloses “that the invention can be used for direct measurement, on ground survey, etc.” Ans. 19 (citing Lin, Abstract). That is, the Examiner finds that Lin discloses “the distance between the cameras and the target is the distance between the camera and ground because the target is the ground.” Ans. 19. We do not agree with the Examiner that Lin discloses targeting the ground with two-dimensional stereo cameras to calculate a distance to the ground. Lin merely discloses that “[c]onventional engineering techniques for spatial mapping include the use of direct measurement, on-ground survey, Appeal 2011-003827 Application 10/817,900 6 GPS [global positioning system], [and] photogrammetry of aerial or satellite images.” Lin, Abstract (emphasis added). In other words, in addition to disclosing a particular spatial mapping system, Lin identifies several conventional alternatives for spatial mapping. This acknowledgment of alternative spatial mapping techniques does not disclose targeting the ground using Lin’s two-dimensional stereo cameras. Based on the forgoing, we agree with Appellants, see App. Br. 10–13, that the Examiner erred in finding that Lin discloses “the creating of the 3- dimensional map comprises determining at least one of a camera to ground distance,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2–28, which contain similar recitations. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 18–20. We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1–28. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of claims 1–28. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 18–20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Appeal 2011-003827 Application 10/817,900 7 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation