Ex Parte Mas et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 26, 2013

10817906 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

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.
10/817,906 04/06/2004 Francisco Rovira Mas 025244-0104 2912
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 2011-004147
Application 10/817,906
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 2011-004147
Application 10/817,906

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 1–38. 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 using data from a 3-dimensional field scene
map to aid in the navigation of a vehicle, comprising:
at least one camera for producing a pair of images of a
field scene;
means for creating a disparity image from the pair of
images and analyzing features within the disparity image,
wherein the creating comprises determining at least one of a
camera to ground distance and a camera tilt angle; and
means for operatively connecting the creating means to a
navigation system of a vehicle, wherein information gathered
from the at least one camera is transmitted to the navigation
system for use in guiding the vehicle.
Rejections
The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17,
37, and 38 under a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting
rejection as being unpatentable over copending Application number
Appeal 2011-004147
Application 10/817,906

3
10/817,900, in view of Don Murray and James Little, Using Real-Time
Stereo Vision for Mobile Robot Navigation, Autonomous Robots 8, pp. 161–
171 (2000) (“Murray”).2 Ans. 5–9.
The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1–9, 11, 16, 17, 23–29, 37,
and 38 under a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection as
being unpatentable over copending Application number 10/817,901, in view
of Murray. Ans. 9–16.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Ans. 4.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over 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”) and
Murray. Ans. 17–32.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the Specification does not
disclose “the creating of [a disparity image] comprises determining at least
one of a camera to ground distance,” as recited in claim 1?

2 Appellants do not present arguments or evidence showing error in the
Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double-patenting rejections. See
App. Br. 7. Accordingly, we pro forma affirm these rejections.
Appeal 2011-004147
Application 10/817,906

4
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Lin discloses “the creating of
[a disparity image] 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
originally filed [is there] a disclosure of how the camera to ground distance
is used in the creation of the 3D map.” Ans. 4. Specifically, the Examiner
finds that the Specification merely discloses that “the 3D map is generated
by converting the camera coordinates Xc, Yc, Zc (in 3 dimensions) to the
ground coordinate[s] X, Y, Z and not by a one dimensional distance between
a camera and ground.” Id. That is, the Examiner finds that the Specification
does not disclose the use of a camera to ground distance in creating a
disparity image, a three-dimensional representation of a scene. See Spec.,
¶ [0007].
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. 9–10 (citing Spec., ¶¶ [0115] and
[0129]). 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., ¶¶ [0115] and [0129]. The Examiner’s findings do not address these
disclosures. See Ans. 4. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in finding that the Specification does not disclose “the
Appeal 2011-004147
Application 10/817,906

5
creating of [a disparity image] 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 2–38 which are similarly
rejected.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that Lin discloses “the creating [of a disparity
image] comprises determining at least one of a camera to ground distance
and a camera tilt angle,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 18 (citing Lin, slides
6, 12, 14, 27–34, p. 3, p. 4, ll. 10–30, p. 7, ll. 1–10, pp. 8–10, figs. 1, 6, 7,
and eq. 1). Specifically, the Examiner notes that Lin discloses distance
measurement with a stereo machine vision system. See Ans. 18. The
Examiner finds that Lin discloses the three-dimensional space representation
(Xr, Xl, Z), where Xr and Xl represent a two-dimensional array in a disparity
plane and Z represents a distance. Id. The Examiner also finds that Lin
teaches a three-dimensional digital map that includes the distance of a
camera to ground. Id. Thus, the Examiner relies on Lin to teach or suggest
the use of “a camera to ground distance” in creating a disparity image.
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. 13. We agree
with Appellants. The Examiner’s findings do not show that the cited
disclosures in Lin teach or suggest 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
Appeal 2011-004147
Application 10/817,906

6
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 to render a 3-dimensional local
map of the agricultural field scene.” Ans. 34 (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 ground in [the] case of [an] agricultural field scene.” Ans. 34.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Lin teaches or suggests
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, 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
teach or suggest targeting the ground using Lin’s two-dimensional stereo
cameras.
Based on the forgoing, we agree with Appellants, see App. Br. 11–14,
that the Examiner erred in finding that Lin discloses “the creating of [a
disparity image] comprises determining at least one of a camera to ground
distance,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on Murray to
cure the noted deficiencies. See Ans. 10–11. Accordingly, we do not sustain
Appeal 2011-004147
Application 10/817,906

7
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2–38,
which contain similar recitations.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s provisional non-statutory obviousness-type
double patenting rejection, based on application number 10/817,900 and
Murray, of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 37, and 38.
We affirm the Examiner’s provisional non-statutory obviousness-type
double patenting rejection, based on application number 10/817,901 and
Murray, of claims 1–9, 11, 16, 17, 23–29, 37, and 38.
We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection
of claims 1–38.
We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–
38.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9,
11, 12, 16, 17, 23–29, 37, and 38.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10,
13–15, 18–22, and 30–36.
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

msc