The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 22, 2021

2020002258 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 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.
15/459,557 03/15/2017 Robin Mark Adrian Dawson 3898/1086 1249
2101 7590 06/22/2021
Sunstein LLP
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02110-2321
EXAMINER
KHALID, OMER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2021 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):
usptomail@sunsteinlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBIN MARK ADRIAN DAWSON,
JUHA-PEKKA J. LAINE, MURALI V. CHAPARALA,
CHARLES ARANT, and MATTHEW T. JAMULA
________________

Appeal 2020-002258
Application 15/459,557
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, 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 6, 7, 11‒14, and 17‒21.1 Claims 1‒5 and 8‒10 were
canceled. See Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Claims 15, 16, and 22‒24 have
been indicated as allowable and are not before us on appeal. Non-Final Act.
3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Charles
Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002258
Application 15/459,557

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to an optical navigation system that
uses monocentric lenses and curved image sensor arrays to determine the
location of the navigation system. Spec. ¶¶ 2‒11. Claim 6 illustrates the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
6. A navigation system comprising:
a monocentric objective lens;
a first curved digital image sensor array disposed parallel
to, and spaced apart from, the lens, the first curved digital
image sensor array having a shape at least approximating a
portion of a sphere;
a catalog; and
a controller communicatively coupled to the first curved
digital image sensor array and configured to match image data
from the first curved digital image sensor array to image data
stored in the catalog to automatically determine a location of
the navigation system.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 6, 7, 11‒14, and 17‒21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Stark (US 8,488,257 B2; July 16, 2013),
McWilliams (US 7,518,792 B2; Apr. 14, 2009), van Bezooijen (US
5,745,869 Apr. 28, 1998), and Oliver (US 7,397,066 B2; July 8, 2008). Non-
Final Act. 4‒33.2

2 All references to the Non-Final Office Action refer to the Non-Final Office
Action entered on April 9, 2019.
Appeal 2020-002258
Application 15/459,557

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Stark, McWilliams, van
Bezooijen, and Oliver teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 6.
See Non-Final Act. 4‒7. In particular, the Examiner finds McWilliams
teaches a telescope that matches stars in a captured image to stars in an
image stored in a database to determine automatically the orientation of the
telescope. Ans. 35 (citing McWilliams 4:51‒55). The Examiner finds the
orientation of the telescope provides a location of the system. Id. The
Examiner further finds van Bezooijen teaches determining a location of the
navigation system using a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver.
Ans. 39 (citing van Bezooijen 5:10‒20). The Examiner finds an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have added van Bezooijen’s GPS receiver to
McWilliams’s celestial tracking device to determine a location of the
tracking device. Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because the combined references
do not teach or suggest “a controller . . . configured to match image data
from the first curved digital image sensor array to image data stored in the
catalog to automatically determine a location of the navigation system.” See
Appeal Br. 8‒11; Reply Br. 1‒3. In particular, Appellant argues McWilliams
teaches determining an orientation of a telescope, but an orientation of a
telescope is not a location of the telescope. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues the
Examiner seems to concede this deficiency by finding that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have added van Bezooijen’s GPS receiver to determine
the location of the device. Id. Appellant argues van Bezooijen’s GPS
receiver determines a device’s location, but does not do so by matching
image data from an image sensor to image data stored in a catalog, as
Appeal 2020-002258
Application 15/459,557

4
claimed. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner has not explained sufficiently
how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would combine these teachings to
arrive at the claimed subject matter. Id.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The cited portions of
McWilliams teach a processor determines the orientation of a telescope by
measuring angles between stars in captured images and comparing the
measured angle to angles in a database. McWilliams 4:48‒55. McWilliams
uses this information to track automatically the alignment of a telescope and
adjust the alignment to direct the telescope at virtually any star or other
celestial object specified by a user. Id. at 3:12‒18. However, the orientation
of the telescope is not its location, merely the direction the telescope is
pointing.
The cited portions of van Bezooijen teach optical navigation may be
used to compare images of a satellite captured by a camera on the ground to
determine the location of the satellite, but this type of optical navigation
suffers from long delays. van Bezooijen 5:10‒19. van Bezooijen also teaches
satellites may use GPS receivers to determine their location. Id. at 5:20‒27.
There is no teaching or suggestion in van Bezooijen that the GPS receiver
determines the location by matching captured images to images in a catalog.
The Examiner has not identified, nor have we found, teachings in any of the
cited references of a navigation system that captures images and matches
those captured images to image data stored in a catalog to automatically
determine a location of the navigation system. Nor has the Examiner
explained how an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined van
Bezooijen’s GPS-based location determination with McWilliams’s
Appeal 2020-002258
Application 15/459,557

5
orientation determination to arrive at a system that matches captured images
to images stored in a catalog to determine the location of the system.
For these reasons, the Examiner fails to establish sufficiently that the
references teach or suggest the disputed limitation.3 Accordingly, on this
record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 6. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 11 and 17, which recite commensurate
subject matter.
Independent claims 13 and 19 do not recite matching image data “to
automatically determine a location of the navigation system.” Instead,
independent claims 13 and 19 recite matching image data “to provide course
guidance information during a [first or second] phase of a mission.” The
Examiner’s findings regarding these limitations suffer from the same
deficiencies identified above with respect to claim 6. See Non-Final Act. 20;
31. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of independent claim
13 or independent claim 19 for the same reasons. By virtue of their
dependency from either independent claims 6, 11, 13, 17, and 19, we also do
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 7, 12,
14, 18, 20, and 21.

SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed

3 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Appeal 2020-002258
Application 15/459,557

6
6, 7, 11‒
14, 17‒21
103 Stark, McWilliams,
van Bezooijen, Oliver
6, 7, 11‒
14, 17‒21

REVERSED