2021001284 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2021)

OPTiM Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2021

2021001284 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2021)

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. 16/522,851 07/26/2019 Shunji SUGAYA OPC20190014US 1017 66390 7590 03/29/2021 LEX IP MEISTER, PLLC 5180 PARKSTONE DRIVE, SUITE 175 CHANTILLY, VA 20151 EXAMINER GRANT II, JEROME ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2664 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2021 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 SHUNJI SUGAYA, KAZUO TOMOHIRO, and TAKESHI KYUSAKA ________________ Appeal 2021-001284 Application 16,522,851 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒9, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies OPTIM CORPORATION as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001284 Application 16,522,851 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to a land use determination system that determines whether land is used for a registered use by analyzing aerial photographs. Spec. ¶¶ 2‒3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A land use determination system for determining whether a land is used for a same use as a registered use, comprising: an image acquiring unit that acquires an image obtained by image-capturing a land; an address specifying unit that analyzes the image to specify an address of the land; a use specifying unit that analyzes the image to specify a use for which the land is used by specifying a type or status of an object on the land; and a determining unit that determines whether a registered use of the land based on the address matches the use of the land specified by the analysis. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1‒3 and 7‒9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Mueller (WO 2014/120887 A1; Aug. 7, 2014). Final Act. 2‒7. Claims 4‒6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mueller. Final Act. 7‒8. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Mueller does not disclose “analyzing the image to specify a use for which the land is used by specifying a type or status of an object on the land.” Appeal Br. 7‒10. In particular, Appellant argues Mueller discloses gaining Appeal 2021-001284 Application 16,522,851 3 insight into land use by quantifying the conditions of the land, such as accumulated growing days, minimum temperatures, vegetative vigor, and vegetative yield predictions. Id. at 8. Appellant argues that quantifying these conditions does not involve specifying a type or status of an object of the land. Id. at 8. Appellant argues Mueller’s comparison of crop growth across time periods does not specify the type of the crop and, therefore, does not disclose the disputed limitation. Id. at 9. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Mueller discloses analyzing satellite images to predict crop growth and using this prediction to specify a use of the land. Ans. 10‒ 11. Appellant’s argument that this use of crop growth does not include specifying a type of crop is unpersuasive because claim 1 is not limited to specifying a type of an object on the land. Instead, claim 1 recites “a use specifying unit that analyzes the image to specify a use for which the land is used by specifying a type or status of an object on the land” (emphasis added). When a claim covers several alternatives, the claim may be deemed anticipated if any of the alternatives within the scope of the claim are disclosed by the prior art. See Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311 (2002) (citing Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d at 1352). Mueller specifies a status of the crop growth on the land and, therefore, discloses one of these alternative limitations. Appellant also argues Mueller does not disclose “determining whether a registered use of the land based on the address matches the use of the land specified by the analysis,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10‒11. In particular, Appellant argues Mueller discloses detecting changes in land use Appeal 2021-001284 Application 16,522,851 4 by comparing the land use in one year against the land use in another year, but does not teach determining whether a registered use of the land matches the use of the land specified by the analysis of an image of the land. Id. at 11. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Mueller discloses comparing the use of land at two times. Ans. 14 (citing Mueller 6:10‒12). The Examiner finds, and we agree, the first, earlier use corresponds to the “registered use” as claimed and the second, later use is specified by an analysis of the image of the land. Id. at 14–15. Indeed, Muller explicitly discloses land use for each dataset is classified for a given land area and comparisons may be made between one dataset (e.g., the earlier dataset) and another (e.g., the later dataset) to determine whether land use has changed. See, e.g., Mueller 11:3‒19. Appellant did not file a Reply Brief and has not persuasively identified error in the Examiner’s findings regarding these disclosures. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in these findings. For these reasons, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims 8 and 9, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See Appeal Br. 5‒12. We also sustain the anticipation rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, and 7, for which Appellant provides no separate argument. Id. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 4‒6, for which Appellant provides no separate argument. Id. Appeal 2021-001284 Application 16,522,851 5 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1‒3, 7‒9 102(a) Mueller 1‒3, 7‒9 4‒6 103 Mueller 4‒6 Overall Outcome 1‒9 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED