Pictometry International Corp.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2021

2020002765 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
13/915,285 06/11/2013 Chris T. Thornberry 6338.217 2031
30589 7590 06/30/2021
DUNLAP CODDING, P.C.
PO BOX 16370
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73113
EXAMINER
TRAN, TAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2021 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):
docketing@dunlapcodding.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRIS T. THORNBERRY and MARK F. GARRINGER
_____________

Appeal 2020-002765
Application 13/915,285
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. 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. Appellant identifies Pictometry International Corp. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002765
Application 13/915,285

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The application is directed to “measuring roofing dimensions and
other attributes, and more particularly pertains to the use of aerial imagery in
that field.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1–22 are pending; claims 1, 10, and 21 are
independent. Appeal Br. 35–44. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A process for determining reports of attributes of real-
world three-dimensional buildings, comprising the acts of:
receiving, from a user, first location data generally
corresponding to a geographic location of a first building of real-
world three-dimensional buildings;
providing visual access to an image of a region including
a roof structure of the first building corresponding to the first
location data and a roof structure of a second building of the real-
world three-dimensional buildings;
on the image of the region, providing a first computer
input capable of signaling a designation from the user of a first
building roof structure location within the image of the region,
wherein the first building roof structure location is a geographic
position of the first building roof structure and is different than
the first location data;
receiving the designation of the first building roof
structure location;
on the image of the region, providing a second computer
input, different from the first computer input, capable of
signaling a designation from the user of a second building roof
structure location within the image of the region, wherein the
second building roof structure location is a geographic position
of the second building roof structure and is different than the first
location data and different than the geographic position of the
first building roof structure;
receiving the designation of the second building roof
structure location;
Appeal 2020-002765
Application 13/915,285

3
subsequent to receiving the designation of the first and
second building roof structure locations, providing a third
computer input capable of signaling user-acceptance of the first
and second building roof structure locations, wherein user-
acceptance is one or more affirmative steps undertaken by the
user to confirm the designation of the first and second building
roof structure locations as particular roof structures for which the
user requests roof reports; and,
subsequent to receiving the user-acceptance confirming
the designation of the first and second building roof structure
locations, providing a roof report for each of the first and second
roof structures including one or more images different than the
image of the region and corresponding to geographic location
coordinates of the first and second building roof structure
locations.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Eulau US 6,411,910 B1 June 25, 2002
Thornberry US 2010/0296693 A1 Nov. 25, 2010
Gregg US 2014/0025343 A1 Jan. 23, 2014

Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thornberry in view of Gregg, or alternatively in view of
Eulau. Non-Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). We
disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with
our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appeal 2020-002765
Application 13/915,285

4
Appellant’s arguments center around the assertion that “[t]he Office Action
does not address where Thornberry [], or Gregg, or Eulau teaches”:
1. “a second computer input, different from the first computer input”;
2. “wherein the second building roof structure location . . . is different
than the first location data”;
3. “subsequent to receiving the designation of the . . . second building
roof structure locations, providing a third computer input capable of
signaling user-acceptance of the . . . second building roof structure
locations”; and
4. “subsequent to receiving the user-acceptance confirming the
designation of the first and second building roof structure locations,
providing a roof report.”
Appeal Br. 22. Appellant contends that
simply selecting multiple components or repeating would not
teach or suggest [claim 1’s features of] “providing a second
computer input, different from the first computer input, capable
of signaling a designation from the user of a second building
roof structure location within the image of the region, wherein
the second building roof structure location is a geographic
position of the second building roof structure and is different
than the first location data and . . . receiving the designation of
the second building roof structure location” to a person having
ordinary skill in the art.

Reply Br. 3. Similarly, based on the assertion of teachings missing from the
references, Appellant contends “there is no suggestion to combine the
teachings of Thornberry [ ] and Gregg or Eulau in the manner specified.”
Appeal Br. 25.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that
Appeal 2020-002765
Application 13/915,285

5
[b]y using the multiple physical structures selection process of
Gregg, the building roof structure selection process of
Thornberry can be repeated so that the user can produce the
report for multiple building roof structures in one session
instead of simply order the report for each building structure
one at a time

(Ans. 32), and
[b]y using the multiple physical structures selection feature of
Eulau, the building roof structure selection process of
Thornberry can be repeated so that the user can produce a
single report for multiple building roof structures in one session
instead of simply order the report for each building structure
one at a time.

Ans. 32–33. One skilled in the art, having examined the references, would
grasp the repetition of Thornberry’s steps necessary to achieve the features
suggested by either Gregg or Eulau. We also agree with the Examiner that
one skilled in the art would be motivated to combine either Gregg or Eulau
with Thornberry, as Gregg
provides an intuitive way for a user to select multiple physical
structures for designing one or more solar panel layouts at the
location specified instead of generating one or more solar panel
layouts for each physical structures

(Non-Final Act. 6–7, citing Gregg Abstract), and similarly Eulau
provides an intuitive way for a user to repeat the selection steps
in order to select multiple components for including in the
component availability report instead of generating the
component availability report for each component separately.

Non-Final Act. 7, citing Eulau 11:45–55, 13:1–14.
In addition to the Examiner’s findings regarding Gregg and Eulau,
repeating the process of Thornberry (and tracking each roof structure data
Appeal 2020-002765
Application 13/915,285

6
separately) is “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions,” yielding predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007). Further, from the record before us, we do
not find that Appellant has presented evidence or reasoning sufficient to
show that
1. the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 21;
2. claim 3’s step of “assigning a project number to an order and
associating the roof report for each of the first and second roof
structures with the project number,” and
3. claim 20’s step of “providing a report summary”,
were “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claim 10 and dependent claims
2, 4–9, and 11–19 not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 26. We also
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3 and 20
separately argued (see Appeal Br. 26–29), as well as independent claim 21
separately argued, and dependent claim 22 not separately argued. See
Appeal Br. 29–33.
Appeal 2020-002765
Application 13/915,285

7

DECISION SUMMARY

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–22 103(a) Thornberry,
Gregg, Eulau
1–22