Ex Parte Parker

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

14556878 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/556,878 12/01/2014
127269 7590 04/02/2019
McCracken & Gillen LLC
1315 West 22nd Street, Suite 225
Oak Brook, IL 60523
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
A. Dale Parker
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.
006398-0030USNPV 1647
EXAMINER
PARK, SUNGHYOUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
docket@mfgip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte A. DALE PARKER
Appeal 2018-003 066
Application 14/556,878 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. App. Br. 7-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Northrup Grumman Systems Corporation as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003066
Application 14/556,878
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellant's claimed invention relates to imaging systems and methods
for use in vehicles such as aircraft. Spec. ,r,r 1--4. Specifically, the invention
involves creating a "vehicle operator point of view" image, based on vehicle
position and external inputs such as cameras. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and the subject matter of the
appeal, and reads as follows:
1. An imaging system, comprising:
a plurality of image capture devices, each device
capturing a different view to create a plurality of different
views;
a point of view processor to create a vehicle operator
point of view image based on vehicle position information and
the plurality of different views, wherein a[t] least one of the
plurality of different views is modified from an image capture
device point of view to the vehicle operator point of view; and
a transmitter to transmit the vehicle operator point of
view image.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x.) (emphasis added).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5-8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Varga et al. (US 2010/0238161 Al;
Sept. 23, 2010) ("Varga") and Koike et al. (US 2006/0268110 Al; Nov. 30,
2006) ("Koike"). Final Act. 4--7.
Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Varga, Koike, and Huang et al. (US 2003/0152892 Al; Aug. 14, 2003)
("Huang"). Final Act. 8-9.
2
Appeal2018-003066
Application 14/556,878
Claims 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Otuka (US 2012/0257056 Al; Oct. 11, 2012) and
Koike. Final Act. 9--12.
Claims 14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Otuka, Koike, and Imoto (US 2003/0095182 Al; May 22,
2003). Final Act. 12-13.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Otuka, Koike, and Varga. Final Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs. On the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner's rejections.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests "one of the plurality of different views is modified from an image
capture device point of view to the vehicle operator point of view," as
recited in claim 1. 2 App. Br. 7-10. Specifically, Appellant contends Koike
teaches only creating a composite image having the same point of view as
the original (source) images, not modifying any point of view, and further
contends that the Examiner acknowledged Varga is silent as to this
limitation. Id. at 7-8. Accordingly, Appellant argues the Examiner has not
explained how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Koike and
Varga as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation. We are persuaded
by Appellant's arguments.
2 Appellant argues claims 1-11 as a group, and we choose claim 1 as
representative of the group. App. Br. 7-10; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(4).
3
Appeal2018-003066
Application 14/556,878
The Examiner finds "Varga[] is silent [ regarding] one of the plurality
of different views is modified from an image capture device point of view to
the vehicle operator point of view." Final Act. 6; Ans. 14. The Examiner
relies solely on Koike as teaching this limitation. Final Act. 6; Ans. 14--15.
The Examiner finds Koike "teaches an apparatus captures images of the
external world in the traveling direction of the car with different cameras
such as a visible light camera, a near infrared camera and a far infrared
camera." Ans. 14 (citing Koike ,r,r 31-32) (emphasis added). The apparatus
then "generates a composite image based on the captured images from
different cameras," and "displays a composite image to a display screen" in
a vehicle, in front of the driver. Id. (emphasis added).
As Appellant argues, however, the Examiner does not explain how
any image in Koike is "modified from an image capture device point of view
to the vehicle operator point of view," as recited in claim 1. Koike does not
teach or suggest modification of any points of view, but rather, combining
different types of images ( e.g., visible light, near infrared, far infrared) all
taken from the same point of view, into a composite. Figures 5A, 5B, and
5C, as reproduced below, are illustrative.
4
Appeal2018-003066
Application 14/556,878
F.I...., ~A u-. ~, .
FIG. SB
FIG. SC
VISIBLE IMAGE V
NEAR INFRARED IMAGEN
FAR INFRARED IMAGE F
Figure 5A illustrates a visible image V of a vehicle on a road. Figure 5B
illustrates a near infrared image N of the same vehicle and road, and Figure
5C illustrates a far infrared image F of the same vehicle and road. The point
of view appears to be the same for all three images.
5
Appeal2018-003066
Application 14/556,878
Koike teaches image processing techniques that result in Figures 5A,
5B, and 5C being combined into a composite image, as shown below in
Figure 8.
FIG. 8
COMPOSITE IMAGE
Figure 8 is a "composite image ... from among all of the pixels constituting
the images V, N, and F" as shown in Figs. 5A-5C. The point of view in
Figure 8 appears to be the same as in Figures 5A, 5B, and 5C, and the
portions of Koike cited by the Examiner do not suggest any point of view
has been modified from any of the image capture devices, i.e., any of the
source cameras.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds it "would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applic[ant's] invention to modify
the teachings of Varga with the above teachings of Koike in order to
incorporate composite video for improving usage of multiple images of
different views efficiently." Ans. 14. As discussed above, however, the
Examiner does not identify any teachings in Varga relevant to the "modified
... point of view" limitation, and we do not find those teachings in the cited
6
Appeal2018-003066
Application 14/556,878
portions of Koike. Accordingly, on this record, we must conclude the
Examiner erred.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
claims 1-11.
Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12-20
for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 10-13. Claims 12-20 recite the
same "modified ... point of view" limitation as claim 1, and the Examiner
relies on the same teachings in Koike. Ans. 15. For the reasons discussed
above, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 12-20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
7