Ex Parte SoubraDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 2, 201612966360 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2016) 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. 12/966,360 12/13/2010 Omar SOUBRA TRMB-2689 8592 112877 7590 12/06/2016 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Trimble Navigation Limited Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER ROTARU, OCTAVIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/06/2016 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OMAR SOUBRA Appeal 2014—005385 Application 12/966,360 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. FETTING, JAMES A. WORTH, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Omar Soubra (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1—38, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented a real time site monitoring design system. Specification para. 18. 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed December 16, 2013) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 17, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 17, 2014), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 16, 2013). Appeal 2014-005385 Application 12/966,360 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A method for designing a system for real-time site monitoring, said method comprising: accessing a three-dimensional (3-D) model of a site by a computer system; determining a location for placing a monitoring sensor at said site by said computer system; and determining by said computer system whether there is an obstruction at said site which inhibits receiving monitoring data by said monitoring sensor when at said location. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Chao US 2002/0128918 A1 Terry US 2007/0124217 A1 Mathews US 2007/0257831 A1 Broughton US 7,720,703 B1 Sep. 12, 2002 May 31, 2007 Nov. 8, 2007 May 18,2010 Trimble, TerraSync Software Getting Started Guide, Version 3.30 Revision A, Dec. 2008 Claims 1—7, 11—19, 23—31, and 35—38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trimble and Mathews. Claims 8, 20, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trimble, Mathews, and Terry. Claims 9, 21, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trimble, Mathews, Terry, and Chao. 2 Appeal 2014-005385 Application 12/966,360 Claims 10, 22, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trimble, Mathews, and Broughton. ISSUES The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art applied describes the steps broadly recited in the claims. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Trimble 01. Trimble is directed to a getting started guide for TerraSync software. Trimble Title. 02. The TerraSync software collects and updates geographical data (GIS and spatial data) on a field computer. A field computer is a handheld device or a computer running the TerraSync software. You can connect a GPS receiver to a field computer that has the TerraSync software installed and use the software to track GPS status, log new data and update existing data, and navigate in the field. The TerraSync software acts as the controlling software. It communicates with a range of Trimble GPS receivers connected to the field computer, allowing you to set GPS parameters in the receiver, record GPS positions on the field computer, and update 3 Appeal 2014-005385 Application 12/966,360 existing GIS data. The software can be used with a wide variety of real-time differential correction sources. If the GPS receiver has an integrated receiver that allows it to receive real-time correction messages from a real-time differential correction source, then the source can be used directly with the GPS receiver. For example, if the receiver has integrated support for Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) such as WAAS, EGNOS and MS AS, then SEAS corrections can be used directly by the GPS receiver. If the receiver is not able to receive these types of signals, use an external source to receive the correction messages and provide them to the GPS receiver. Trimble 12. 03. TerraSync monitors and displays the status of GPS reception. Trimble 51. 04. TerraSync provides for entering of waypoints, which are geographic points for subsequent use. TerraSync describes waypoints with three mutually perpendicular dimensions of North, East, and Altitude. Trimble 97. Mathews 05. Mathews is directed to positioning remote assets and, more particularly, to operating in a local environment where a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) is not available. Mathews para. 2. 06. Mathews shows an illustrative example of three-dimensional positioning in which SCT units are located by intercepting emissions from RSTs placed in a non-coplanar configuration. In 4 Appeal 2014-005385 Application 12/966,360 this embodiment, a reference SCT intercepts emissions from RSTs, which are in the same horizontal plane. Additionally, emissions are intercepted by SCT from RST, which is located in a plane below the reference SCT. Additionally, a second SCT intercepts emissions from the four RSTs. The fact that the beacons are not necessarily in the same plane as the SCT sensors allows for vertical and horizontal positioning of the SCT units, resulting in a three dimensional position given the preferred geometry. Mathews para. 129. 07. Mathews illustrates one possible deployment scenario using both locally deployed RSTs together with GNSS satellites to provide physical state estimation in both GNSS obstructed and unobstructed cases comprising three operating environments: an obstructed GNSS environment, a semi-obstructed GNSS environment and an unobstructed GNSS environment with fringe coverage. Mathews illustrates the seamless transition from an outdoor wide-area solution using GNSS to a total local-area system where GNSS satellite signals are totally obstructed. Though simplified to a 2-D illustration for purposes of the present disclosure, this illustration is equally applicable to a 3-D deployment. The physical state contains two position state parameters: horizontal displacement and vertical displacement. Mathews para. 130. 5 Appeal 2014-005385 Application 12/966,360 ANALYSIS We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the ‘illustrations’ of Matthews are not ‘real-time,’ as claimed but are ‘examples’ that may or may not have been physically implemented and are definitely not a real-time model, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 5. The limitation at issue is “[a] method for designing a system for real time site monitoring.” The limitation is in the preamble and does not limit the claim structure as this is a process claim or breath life and meaning into the body of the claim. Also, the steps are for designing such a system. The steps themselves are not recited as being real-time. For that matter, the limitation does not recite that the system is a real-time system per se, only that the system would ideally be used in real time context. Thus, the modifier “real-time” is asp national and not functional. For all of these reasons, the modifier “real-time” is undeserving of patentable weight. In any event, as the Examiner finds, Trimble describes real-time monitoring. Final Act. 15. The way points thus provide a 3D model of the portion of the Earth containing those way points. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that The cited portions of Matthews merely show an "illustrative example of three dimensional positioning." The "illustration" of Matthews hardly constitutes a three dimensional model, as claimed. Merely showing positioning of SCT units is not the same as "accessing a three-dimensional (3-D) model of a site by a computer system," as claimed. Appeal Br. 5. The limitation at issue is “accessing a three-dimensional (3- D) model of a site by a computer system.” The limitation does not narrow or recite how the access or model is implemented. As a model is simply a 6 Appeal 2014-005385 Application 12/966,360 representation, any representation of a site using three dimensions is within the scope of the limitation. As the Examiner finds, Trimble builds up a set of way points that represent places on the Earth and the representation is characterized by three mutually perpendicular dimensions. Final Act. 16— 17. The way points thus provide a 3D model of the portion of the Earth containing those way points. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the features described by TerraSync rely on manual user input and manual user activity. TerraSync also requires both a handheld and desktop system, thus requiring multiple "computers" in different locations. With TerraSync, all data is collected manually by the user, inputted by the user, location determination is performed manually by the user and obstructions are determined manually by the user. This is very different from performing the claimed features by a computer, as taught by the present invention. Appeal Br. 5—6. The limitation at issue is “determining a location for placing a monitoring sensor at said site by said computer system.” The limitation does not narrow or recite how the determining is implemented or the degree to which this is done by a computer. As the Examiner finds, Trimble describes generally determining a location for things prospectively by entering way points and point features characterized by their coordinates. Final Act. 17. The data that is entered thus causes the computer to determine the location for that way point and point feature. A computer that takes data that is entered, even manually, and translates it to conform to the representation and organizes it into a comprehensive model including the computer implemented representations of such locations, is within the scope of a computer that determines the location within that model. 7 Appeal 2014-005385 Application 12/966,360 We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that [regarding the claimed feature of "determining by said computer system whether there is an obstruction at said site which inhibits receiving monitoring data by said monitoring sensor when at said location," Appellants respectfully submit that the cited passages of TerraSync describe a user manually collecting a "tree feature." Specifically, on page 170, TerraSync describes "if you cannot travel over the top of, or right next to, a feature, you can enter an offset and record it at a specified distance." TerraSync describes this action in the context of a user physically not being able to record position data at a specific location. The user then chooses a suitable location and offset. The computer does not do this for the user and the activity is not described as being performed by a computer, as claimed. Appeal Br. 7. The limitation at issue is “determining by said computer system whether there is an obstruction at said site which inhibits receiving monitoring data by said monitoring sensor when at said location.” The limitation does not narrow or recite how the determining is implemented or the degree to which this is done by a computer. As the Examiner finds, Trimble describes determining that a GPS signal cannot be received which implies some obstruction (even by the Earth itself) that inhibits reception at that location. Final Act. 17—20. The computer thus determines whether there is such an obstruction. The claim does not recite or even imply that the model is used for such determination. Appellants seek much broader scope. Appellants repeat the above arguments for separately argued claims 8 and 9 and rely on the patentability of the independent claims for the remaining dependent claims. 8 Appeal 2014-005385 Application 12/966,360 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1—7, 11—19, 23—31, and 35—38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trimble and Mathews is proper. The rejection of claims 8, 20, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trimble, Mathews, and Terry is proper. The rejection of claims 9, 21, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trimble, Mathews, Terry, and Chao is proper. The rejection of claims 10, 22, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trimble, Mathews, and Broughton is proper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1—38 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation