Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 201612276050 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/276,050 11/21/2008 65798 7590 03/01/2016 MILLER IP GROUP, PLC GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 42690 WOODWARD A VENUE SUITE 300 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Wende Zhang 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. P004 l 60-RD-MJL 3263 EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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 WENDE ZHANG and V ARSHA SADEKAR Appeal2013-007259 Application 12/276,0501 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Wende Zhang, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-15, and 17-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 The Appellants identify GM Global Technology Operations LLC, Michigan, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2013-007259 Application 12/276,050 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for identifying a tum for a vehicle in association with a vehicle navigation system, said method comprising: determining a vehicle route having a vehicle destination; providing a video image using a camera of a scene in front of the vehicle as the vehicle is traveling along the route; automatically calibrating the camera using the video image from the camera so that the orientation of the video image relative to the ground is known; taking range measurements with vehicle mounted equipment that measures the distance from the vehicle to objects; determining a distance from a current vehicle position to a turning location along the route, where the determination includes using the range measurements; and projecting a guidance arrow onto the video image that identifies where the driver should tum the vehicle at the turning location to follow the route, wherein projecting the guidance arrow onto the display includes first placing a virtual guidance arrow laying flat on the ground at the turning location in world coordinates. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: De Jong Smith Arunkumar Geel en Akita us 5, 115,398 us 5,806,018 US 7 ,227 ,453 B2 US 2009/0125234 Al US 8,103,442 B2 2 May 19, 1992 Sept. 8, 1998 June 5, 2007 May 14, 2009 Jan.24,2012 Appeal2013-007259 Application 12/276,050 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-13, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, and Akita. 2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, and Arunkumar. 3. Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 3 5 U.S. C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, Arunkumar, and Akita. 4. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, Akita, and Smith. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejection claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-13, and 18-21; 14; 15 and 17; and, 7 and 10, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, and Akita; De Jong, Geelen, and Arunkumar; De Jong, Geelen, Arunkumar, and Akita; and De Jong, Geelen, Akita, and Smith, respectively? ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-13, and 18-21under35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, and Akita. The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S. C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, and Arunkumar. The independent claims are claims 1, 14, and 18. Claim 1 includes the limitation "automatically calibrating the camera using the video image from the camera so that the orientation of the video image relative to the ground is known." Claims 14 and 18 include a similar limitation. The 3 Appeal2013-007259 Application 12/276,050 Examiner's position is that said limitation is disclosed at col. 3, lines 13--45 and Fig. 3 of De Jong. See Final Act. 3, 6, and 5 for claims 1, 14, and 18, respectively. The Appellants disagree. See App. Br. 14 ("Appellant submits that independent claims 1, 14 and 18 include calibrating the camera relative to the ground, but De Jong does not. Rather, De Jong discloses an image that includes a picture of the ground.") Col. 3, lines 13--45 is reproduced below: FIG. 2 diagrammatically shows the structure of a navigation system suitable for performing the method in accordance with the invention. Module 21 is a known car navigation system, for example a CARIN system as described in the cited article by N. L. G. Thoone, which supplies navigation data on the basis of measurement data from sensors (such as a compass and wheel sensors which measure the number of revolutions) and topographic data in a data structure, for example coordinates which represent the current position of the vehicle and coordinates which represent a calculated optimum route to be followed. In module 22 this navigation data is subjected to a transformation in accordance \'l1ith the position of the image pick=up unit 24 with respect to the environment: the relevant area of the data structure containing the topographic data is "viewed" from the point of view of the image pick-up unit as described in the previously filed, non-prepublished Netherlands Patent Application No. 8900056 (corresponding to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 463,696 filed Jan. II, 1990). Navigation data to be displayed, for example indications of the route to be followed, thus correspond to the roads in the local image of the environment. Module 23 is a video generator which forms an indication signal from the transformed navigation data: for example, a stylistic indication of the route to be followed. Image pick- up unit 24 (a video camera or television camera) supplies an image of the environment. In a combination module 2S the indication signal and the environment image are combined so as to form a combined signal which is displayed on display unit 26 (a video display, television receiver or monitor). 4 Appeal2013-007259 Application 12/276,050 We see no disclosure in said passage of automatically calibrating a camera as claimed. Nor do we find it disclosed in Fig. 2. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been made out for the claimed subject matter as a whole in the first instance by a preponderance of the evidence. As a result, the rejections of the independent claims are not sustained. We reach the same conclusion as to the dependent claims rejected which necessarily include the claim limitation at issue. The rejection of claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, Arunkumar, and Akita. The rejection of claims 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, Akita, and Smith. These rejections of dependent claims 7, 10, 15, and 17 which necessarily include the claim limitation at issue in independent claims 1 and 14 are not sustained for the same reasons. CONCLUSIONS The rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-13, and 18-21under35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, and Akita is reversed. The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, and Arunkumar is reversed. The rejection of claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, Arunkumar, and Akita is reversed. The rejection of claims 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over De Jong, Geelen, Akita, and Smith is reversed. 5 Appeal2013-007259 Application 12/276,050 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3 and 7-15, and 17-21 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation