US Radar, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2021

2020003554 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
15/222,255 07/28/2016 Justin LaBarca 3042-003US1 9553
22897 7590 09/30/2021
Kaplan Breyer Schwarz, LLP
90 Matawan Road, Suite 201
Matawan, NJ 07747
EXAMINER
MAZUMDER, SAPTARSHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2021 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@kbsiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUSTIN LaBARCA and MATTHEW KEYS
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15–17, 22, 31–
34, 37 and 40–43. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as U.S.
Radar, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to visualizing hidden objects detected by a
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). Spec. para. 12. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system based on ground-penetrating radar (GPR) that
visually depicts objects hidden by a surface, the system
comprising:
a GPR unit configured to move along a path on the
surface, wherein the GPR unit transmits, via a radio transmitter,
a first radio signal and receives, via a radio receiver, a second
reflected radio signal, wherein the second reflected radio signal
comprises one or more reflections of the first radio signal
caused by one or more of the objects hidden by the surface;
a first processor that receives a representation of the
second reflected radio signal and, based on the representation,
generates a description of at least one hidden object, wherein
the description comprises an indication of a position of the at
least one hidden object;
a second processor that receives the description of the at
least one hidden object and generates a visual specification of
the at least one hidden object relative to a local environment,
wherein the visual specification comprises a specification of the
position of the at least one hidden object relative to the local
environment;
a camera configured to capture an image of the GPR unit
moving along the path and an image of the local environment;
and
a display device that receives the visual specification and
generates a composite image that combines the image of the
local environment and an image of the at least one hidden
object, wherein:
the image of the at least one hidden object is placed,
relative to the image of the local environment, in accordance
with the visual specification, and the image of the local
environment is the actual image of the local environment,
where a portion of the surface thereof is depicted as
being at least partially transparent so that the at least one hidden
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

3
object is visible therebelow, and in the proper position relative
thereto; and
wherein the composite image further comprises a portion
of the image of the GPR unit moving along the path;
wherein the portion of the image of the GPR unit moving
along the path comprises at least one of:
(a) an image of a portion of the path that the GPR unit
has previously traversed, and
(b) an image of a portion of the path that the GPR unit has not
yet traversed.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Stolarczyk US 2002/0140596 Al Oct. 3, 2002
Szwilski US 2010/0026551 Al Feb. 4, 2010
Scott US 2010/0277397 Al Nov. 4, 2010
Beer US 2013/0082857 Al Apr. 4, 2013
Simicevic US 2014/0218225 Al Aug. 7, 2014
Cote US 9,715,008 Bl July 25, 2017

Sanat Talmaki, Vineet R. Kamat, and Hubo Cai, Geometric modeling of
geospatial data for visualization-assisted excavation, Advanced Engineering
Informatics, 27, 283–298 (2013). Hereinafter “Talmaki.”

Sanat A. Talmaki, Suyang Dong, and Vineet R. Kamat, Geospatial
Databases and Augmented Reality Visualization for Improving Safety in
Urban Excavation Operations, Construction Research
Congress 2010: Innovation for Reshaping Construction Practice. 2010.
Hereinafter “Talmaki_2.”

Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

4
REJECTIONS

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
43 112 Indefiniteness
43 112 Enablement
1, 4, 11, 12, 16, 17, 31,
32, 41–43
103 Scott, Talmaki,
Stolarczyk, Talmaki_2,
Simicevic
2, 5, 15, 33–34, 37, 40 103 Scott, Talmaki,
Stolarczyk, Talmaki_2,
Simicevic, Cote
6, 8 103 Scott, Talmaki,
Stolarczyk, Talmaki_2,
Simicevic, Beer
9 103 Scott, Talmaki,
Stolarczyk, Talmaki_2,
Simicevic, Szwilski
22 103 Scott, Talmaki,
Talmaki_2, Simicevic

OPINION
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Final Action
and the Answer to the extent consistent with our opinion. We add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Claim 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claim 43 recites in pertinent part “the position of the GPR unit further
comprises capturing, by a camera, an image of the GPR unit . . . and
wherein the estimate of the position of the GPR unit is based, at least in
part, on the image of the GPR unit.” Claim 43 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that it is not clear from the closest support of the
Specification that the image of the GPR unit is used to estimate the position
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

5
of the GPR unit because the reference frame doesn’t have an image the GPR
unit. Final Act. 7.
Appellant argues that the image of the GPR includes, for example,
visual markers, either intentionally placed in the region or naturally
occurring to which the location of the GPR unit can be referenced. Appeal
Br. 19. Appellant explains that the markers provide the reference frame. Id.
Appellant argues that one skilled in the art would understand that this is
what is being discussed in the Specification:
A localization system can be used to generate estimates of the
position of the GPR unit as it is moved on the surface of the
floor. Such estimates should preferably be relative to a
reference frame that can be related to the surrounding
environment. ...
. . . in some embodiments, visual markers are placed at
reference points in the environment. Such markers can be, for
example, so-called augmented-reality markers. In some
situations, the visual markers are already present in the
environment, whereas in other situations, they are placed in the
environment by an operator when needed ....
In an environment that is suitably rich with suitable features,
embodiments are possible that avoid having to place markers of
any type because it is possible to use features that are naturally
occurring in the environment to establish a reference frame.
For example, if a floor, or pavement, or ground exhibits a
pattern of cracks, or bumps, or pebbles, or decorations, or
other such features, pattern recognition via image processing
can be sufficient to provide a reliable reference frame.

Appeal Br. 19 (citing paras. 52–53). According to Appellant a POSITA
understands that an image of the GPR unit can be processed, via pattern
recognition, against the reference frame, to determine the GPR unit's
location in the frame. Id.
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

6
The Examiner responds that Specification paragraph 52 states that the
estimate of the GPR unit is relative to a reference frame and the subject
matter of the claim is not a reference frame. Ans. 12. The Examiner further
notes that, the Specification paragraphs 52 and 53 teach that augmented
reality markers are placed on the environment and this doesn’t indicate that
the estimate of the position of the GPR unit is based on the image of the
GPR unit. Ans. 13.
We agree with Appellant’s argument. At the outset, we note that the
Examiner’s finding that the claim does not recite “a reference frame” is
incorrect because claim 43 depends from claim 41 wherein claim 41 recites
“wherein the estimate of the position of the GPR unit is relative to a
reference frame.” See claim 41. Thus, “a reference frame” is claimed.
Claim 43 requires that “the position of the GPR unit is based, at least
in part, on the image of the GPR unit.” See claim 43. We note that the
breadth of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441
F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788,
166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970) (“Breadth is not indefiniteness.”). A
broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of
subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined. The claim does not
have to recite how the position of the GPR unit is based on the image of the
GPR unit, especially because as Appellant argues, and we agree, a POSITA
understands that an image of the GPR unit can be processed, via pattern
recognition, against the reference frame, to determine the GPR unit's
location in the frame. See Appeal Br. 19 (citing Spec. paras. 52–53). One
skilled in the art would know that a reference frame with artificial or natural
markers can serve as a reference frame that can help localize the GPR image
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

7
that includes those artificial or natural markers. See Spec. paras. 52–53.
The localization techniques mentioned in the cited Specification paragraphs
52–53, are well known techniques including localization systems
“collectively known as global navigation satellite systems (GNSS).” See
Spec. para. 52. Thus, the claim is clear in light of the Specification.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 43 based
on 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claim 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Claim 43 recites in pertinent part “capturing, by a camera, an image of
the GPR unit while it is moved along the path on the surface, and wherein
the estimate of the position of the GPR unit is based, at least in part, on the
image of the GPR unit.” Claim 43 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that original claims 41 and 43 recite that the image
of the GPR unit, as captured by the camera, is used in conjunction with a
“reference frame” to estimate (i.e., localize) the position of the GPR unit in
its environment. Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant argues that the Specification enables the limitation in
question by disclosing the use of a camera to capture an image of the GPR
unit as it is moved along a prescribed path (para. 51), and discloses various
ways to create a reference frame for localizing the image in the environment.
Appeal Br. 18 (citing para. 51). For example, visual markers can be placed
at reference points, or features that are naturally occurring in the
environment, such as a pattern of cracks, bumps, or other features “can
provide enough patterns to yield a usable reference frame via image
processing.” Id. (citing para. 53). Paragraph 53 discloses using an actual
grid pattern that is placed on the surface being examined for use as a
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

8
reference frame. Id. Furthermore, GPS or other forms of radiolocation can
be used to create a reference frame. Appeal Br. 18 (citing para. 52). And
for indoor applications, sound or ultrasound-based localization can be used.
Id.
The Examiner finds that it is not clear from Appellant’s argument how
an ordinary skilled artisan would estimate a position of the GPR unit from
the image of GPR unit. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that Appellant didn’t
provide the relationship of “visual marker in the environment” with the
image of the GPR unit. Id.
We agree with Appellant’s argument that the Specification provides
enough information to enable localizing techniques well known in the art,
and thus, does not need to provide more detailed explanation to meet the
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, enablement requirement. “[A] patent need
not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.” See
Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
As stated above, one skilled in the art would know that a reference
frame with artificial or natural markers can serve as a reference frame that
can help localize the GPR image that includes the artificial or natural
markers. See Spec. paras. 52–53. The localization techniques mentioned in
the cited Specification paragraphs 52–53, are well known techniques
including localization systems “collectively known as global navigation
satellite systems (GNSS).” See Spec. para. 52.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 43, based
on 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

9
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Scott, Talmaki, Stolarczyk, Talmaki_2, Simicevic

1. Does Scott teach the claim 1 limitation of “generate a visual
specification comprising a specification of the position of the at
least one hidden object relative to the local environment,” recited
in claim 1?
The Examiner finds that Scott teaches a process 700 is performed by
one or more processors. Ans. 4 (citing para. 54 and Fig. 7). The Examiner
further finds that received data from sensor head is the reflected radio signal,
hidden object is in the subsurface portion and position 825 is the indication
of position of the hidden object. Ans. 4 (citing Scott para. 54 and Fig. 7,
Step 720). The Examiner concludes that one of Scott’'s processors (i.e.,
claimed first processor) receives a representation of the reflected radio signal
and generates a description of the hidden object, including an indication of
position of the object. Ans. 4.
The Examiner further finds that the second processor receives data
from a sensor head, wherein the data includes a representation of a magnetic
field produced by a current flowing in a metallic object that has a known
position relative to the continuous-wave metal detector (CWMD). Ans. 4
(citing Scott para. 16). The Examiner explains that the metallic object is the
claimed hidden object and its position is relative to the local environment
(CWMD). Id. Thus, the Examiner concludes that Scott’s processors
generate a visual specification comprising a specification of the position of
the at least one hidden object relative to the local environment as required by
claim 1.
Appellant argues that even if Scott teaches the “one or more
processors in the electronic interface” performed every step of process (700),
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

10
they still not “generate a visual specification comprising a specification of
the position of the at least one hidden object relative to the local
environment,” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 13.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Appellant does not
address the Examiner’s finding with respect to that the metallic object is the
claimed hidden object and its position is relative to the local environment
(CWMD). See Appeal Br. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Scott’s processors generate a visual specification comprising a specification
of the position of the at least one hidden object relative to the local
environment as required by claim 1. See Ans. 4 and Scott para. 16.
2. Does Scott teach the claim 1 limitation of “a display
device,” recited in claim 1?
The Examiner finds, that the argued limitation of “a display device,”
is taught by Scott in view of Talmaki. Ans. 5. Scott teaches that a device
receives the visual specification and generates an image of the object. Ans.
5 (citing para. 41). The Examiner relies on Talmaki for the teaching of a
display of a buried object wherein Figure 16 shows a composite image
where hidden image is augmented on the real world environment. Ans. 5
(citing Talmaki page 285, section 2.4 and Fig. 16).
Appellant argues that Scott does not teach a display device, that
“generates a composite image.” Appeal Br. 13–14.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1986). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Scott
in view of Talmaki teach or suggest a display device that “generates a
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

11
composite image.” See Ans. 5. In particular, we agree with the Examiner
that Scott teaches that a device receives the visual specification and
generates an image of the object because Scott states, “[t]he electronics
module 130 may format the data received from the sensor head 110 into
images that are automatically analyzed for the presence of surface or buried
objects.” Scott para. 41. We also agree with the Examiner that Talmaki
displays a buried object and Figure 16 shows a composite image where
hidden image is augmented on the real world environment. Ans. 5 (citing
Talmaki page 285, section 2.4 and Fig. 16). We note that the cited
paragraph in Talmanaki teaches “[a] two dimensional display” and also use
of “mobile devices such as smart phones, personal digital assistants (PTAs)
and tablets empower these devices to run computer graphics” to display the
“3D visualization of buried utility networks is possible.” Ans. 5–6 (citing
Talmaki page 285, section 2.4).
The Examiner modifies Scott to have included a display device to
receive the visual specification (receiving visual specification by a device is
already taught by Scott para. 41) and to generate a composite image on a
display that combines the image of the local environment and an image of
the at least one hidden object, as taught by Talmaki, for the purpose of
providing visual information of the underground utility lines to workers to
help planning and maintenance of their work and to provide excavation
safety. See Ans. 5–6 and Talmaki page 285, section 2.4.

Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

12
3. Does the combination of Scott, Talmaki_2 and Simicevic
teach or suggest the limitation of “a camera configured to
capture an image of the GPR unit moving along the path
and an image of the local environment,” recited in claim 1?
Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner finds Talmaki 2 teaches a
“camera adapted to capture an image of an excavator moving along the path
and an image of the local environment.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant also
acknowledges that the Examiner finds that “Talmaki 2 shows the video
camera takes picture of the environment with the excavator while is it
moved on the surface.” Id. Appellant repeats the Examiner’s finding that it
would have been obvious to modify Scott by having a camera configured to
capture an image of the GPR unit moving along the path and an image of the
local environment based on the teaching of:
(1) having an excavator as taught by Talmaki 2, and
(2) Simicevic's teaching of having a GPR unit in excavator,
. . . thereby having the image include an image of the GPR unit. Id.
Appellant states that the alleged motivation for so modifying Scott is
“to provide excavation safety as [a] user can view the image of the
GPR and surrounding environment in [an] AR display without
actually looking at [the] physical device.” Id.
Appellant argues that none of the references teach a camera to capture
an image of the GPR unit, and therefore, the combination thereof cannot be
said to do so. Appeal Br. 14.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument because the rejection is
based on a combination of references. The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to the artisan.
Accordingly, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

13
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant further argues that there is no motivation to combine the
references as suggested by the Examiner because Scott is not directed to
excavation, among any other reasons. Appeal Br. 15. According to
Appellant Scott teaches a device for detecting hidden objects, in particular,
land mines and unexploded ordnance and does not perform excavation. Id.
(citing Scott para.4). Appellant argues that its invention captures the image
of the GPR unit to determine its position relative to the surrounding
environment. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues that the cited art takes a
different approach, and specifically, Talmaki 2 teaches using kinematic
measurements (i.e., an electronic compass) to determine the position of the
backhoe's boom/bucket. Id. Appellant argues that for purposes of analysis,
and assuming that Talmaki 2 includes elements of a GPR system
(transmitter/receiver) in the teeth of a backhoe's bucket, as taught by
Simicevic, and the location of the boom/bucket is determined by kinematic
measurements, there would be NO reason to use a camera to do so. Id.
Appellant argues that while the reason/function of the camera in Appellant’s
invention is not dispositive of the motivation issue, to the extent that
Talmaki 2 uses the kinematic measurements to direct the view of the camera
in the direction of the boom/bucket, that camera would, at best sporadically
image elements of the hypothetical GPR unit (transmitter/receiver) housed in
the teeth of the backhoe’s bucket. Id.
Appellant in other words, argues that when combined as suggested by
the Examiner (Scott/Talmaki 2/Simicevic), there is no motivation/reason
whatsoever for the camera to image the GPR unit. Id. According to
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

14
Appellant, the camera is only capable of capturing glimpses of the elements
of the GPR unit. Id. Appellant argues that although there might be
motivation for the camera to image the backhoe's boom or bucket that is not
the same thing as imaging the GPR unit. Id.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be
physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and
In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
Rather, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
In the instant case, the Examiner finds that Talmaki_2 Figure 2
teaches a video camera that takes picture of the environment with the
excavator while it is moved on the surface. Ans. 6. The Examiner further
finds that Simicevic teaches an excavator having a GPR unit. Id. (citing
Simicevic para. 12). The Examiner proposed to modify Scott to include a
camera configured to capture an image of the GPR unit moving along the
path and an image of the local environment. Ans. 6. The Examiner
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

15
explained that the modification is based on the teaching of having a camera
capturing image of an excavator as taught by Talmaki_2 and Simicevic’s
teaching a GPR unit in an excavator, thereby teaching the image to include
an image of the GPR unit. Ans. 6–7. The motivation for the modification is
to provide GPR safety as a user can view the image of the GPR and
surrounding environment in AR display without actually looking at the
physical GPR device. Ans. 7 citing Talmaki_2 ABSTRACT: “using
georeferenced Augmented Reality (AR) to provide the operator and the
spotter(s) with visual information on the location and type of utilities that
exist in the excavator's vicinity.” Ans. 7.
We also agree with the Examiner that Scott doesn’t have to teach
performing excavation, for the Scott’s GPR to be imaged in an excavation
environment as taught Talmaki_2 and Simicevic. See Ans. 7. In other
words, Scott’s GPR technique to analyze the presence of surface and/or
buried objects can be used to improve Talmaki_2 and Simicevic’s teaching
of a GPR unit in an excavator environment and having a camera capturing
image of an excavator, thereby teaching the image to include an image of the
GPR unit located on the excavator, because a person of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.
See KSR at 417.
Accordingly, based on the above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1.
Claims 4, 11, 12, 17, 31, and 32.
Appellant argues that claims 4, 11, 12, 17, 31, and 32 should be
allowed based on the same arguments raised for claim 1. Appeal Br. 15.
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

16
Accordingly, for the same reasons as stated above we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4, 11, 12, 17, 31, and 32.
Claims 16 and 41
Claim 16 recites in pertinent part: “generate an estimate of a position
of the GPR unit; wherein the indication of the position of the at least one
hidden object is based on the estimate of the position of the GPR unit; and
wherein the estimate of the position of the GPR unit is relative to a reference
frame.” See claim 16.
The Examiner finds that the indication of the position of the at least
one hidden object is based on the estimate of the position of the GPR unit
(Scott para. 16 states, “an integrated sensor head includes receiving data
collected by a continuous-wave metal detector (CWMD). The data includes
a representation of a magnetic field produced by a current flowing in a
metallic object that has a known position relative to the CWMD”); and
wherein the estimate of the position of the GPR unit is relative to a reference
frame (Scott para. 9 teaches that CWMD of GPR system is positioned
between two transceivers). Final Act. 17–18. Thus, the Examiner concludes
that the position of the GPR is relative to a reference frame. Final Act. 18.
Appellant argues that Scott teaches at paragraph 89 that “[t]he sensor
head 900 also may communicate with an inertial measurement unit (IMU)
975 that tracks the position of the sensor head 900. In the example shown,
the IMU 975 receives position measurements from the GPR 940.” Appeal
Br. 17. Appellant argues that this would seem to indicate that an absolute
indication of position is received from the GPR and there is no mention that
the estimate of the position of the GPR unit is relative to a reference frame,
and certainly not relative to the CWMD unit. Id.
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

17
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Scott’s paragraph 41
cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 10) teaches that “[t]he electronics module
130 may format the data received from the sensor head 110 into images
that are automatically analyzed for the presence of surface or buried
objects.” Scott para. 41. Scott further teaches that “[t]he sensor head 110
may include, for example, a ground penetrating radar sensor, such as a GPR
transceiver 940 shown in FIGS. 9A and 12, and a metal detector, such as a
continuous wave metal detector (CWMD) 905 shown in FIGS. 9A and 12.”
Scott para. 40. Thus, under the broadest but reasonable interpretation the
sensor head 110 including both the GPR sensor and the CWMD located on
the same frame (see Fig. 9A) provide the data needed to create images that
are analyzed for the presence of surface or buried objects. See Scott paras.
16, 40, 41. Furthermore, since the location of the buried object (i.e., metallic
object) is relative to the CWMD, then its location would also be relative to
the GPR sensor which is located on the same frame. See Scott para. 16.
Accordingly, under the broadest but reasonable interpretation, Scott
teaches or suggests the limitation of “generate an estimate of a position of
the GPR unit; wherein the indication of the position of the at least one
hidden object is based on the estimate of the position of the GPR unit; and
wherein the estimate of the position of the GPR unit is relative to a reference
frame” as recited in claim 16.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 and for the same
reasons the rejection of claim 41.
Claims 2, 15, 33, 34, and 40
Appellant argues that Cote does not cure the defects of Scott,
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

18
Talmaki 2, Simicevic, Talmaki, Stolarczyk, with respect to independent
claim 1 or 31. Appeal Br. 21. Consequently, claims 2, 15, which are
dependent from claim 1, and claims 33, 34, and 40, which are dependent
from claim 31, are allowable over this combination of references. Id.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 15, 33,
34, and 40 not argued separately, for the same reasons stated above.
Claims 5 and 37
Appellant argues that claim 5 recites the system of claim 4 wherein:
“the camera is part of the display device and the image of the local
environment is a live image.” Appeal Br. 21. According to Appellant, the
Examiner alleges that Cote teaches that the camera is part of the display
device, but the cited passage simply says that a camera captures a planar or
panoramic view of the physical environment. Id. (citing Cote col. 2, ll. 14–
19). Appellant argues that there is no disclosure that the camera is part of
the display device. Id. Appellant argues that claim 37 is similar to claim 5,
but dependent on claim 31, and thus also allowable.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds and
we agree that the cited embodiment of Cote (col. 2, ll. 14–19) is an
electronic device which is a display device because it displays an augmented
reality view and image captured by a camera. Ans. 15. The Examiner
further finds, and we agree that Cote in column 3, lines 56–61 teaches, “[t]he
electronic device may be a portable electronic device, for example, a tablet
computer, an ultramobile personal computer (UMPC), a smartphone, a
wearable computer, for example, with a head-mounted display (HMD) (e.g.,
integrated into eyewear), or another type of mobile computing device that
may be readily transported by a user about the physical environment.” Id.
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

19
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that each of these portable devices has a
camera. See id.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Cote teaches a camera is part
of a display device. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 and 37.
Claims 6, 8, 9, and 22
Appellant does not separately argue claims 6, 8, 9, and 22. Appeal Br.
15–16. Accordingly, we affirm claims 6, 8, 9, and 22.
Claim 43
Appellant argues that claim 43, which is dependent from claim 41,
recites that the method of generating the estimate of position of the GPR unit
further comprises: “capturing, by a camera, an image of the GPR unit while
it is moved along the path on the surface, and wherein the estimate of the
position of the GPR unit is based, at least in part, on the image of the GPR
unit.” Appeal Br. 43. Appellant argues that the Examiner ignores the
limitation of “the estimate of position of the GPR unit is based, at least in
part, on the image of the GPR unit.” Appeal Br. 20.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that the limitation, “the
estimate of position of the GPR unit is based, at least in part, on the image of
the GPR unit” is ignored as the limitation has enablement and indefiniteness
issue. Ans. 14.
A claim limitation which is considered indefinite cannot be
disregarded. See MPEP § 2143.03 I. If a claim is subject to more than one
interpretation, at least one of which would render the claim unpatentable
over the prior art, the Examiner should reject the claim as indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

20
(see MPEP § 2175) and should reject the claim over the prior art based on
the interpretation of the claim that renders the prior art applicable. Id.
When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all
the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including
limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed
(i.e., new matter). See Ex parte Grasselli, 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we are constrained from the record before us to reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 43 under obviousness grounds.2
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15–17, 22,
31–34, 37 and 40–42 under § 103 are AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claim 43 under §§ 112, second
paragraph, 112, first paragraph, and 103 are REVERSED.

2 We note in passing, that should there be further prosecution the Examiner
should consider whether claim 43 is not allowable because it describes what
is well known in the art. See §§ 112, first and second paragraphs analysis
above.

Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

21
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
43 112 Indefiniteness 43
43 112 Enablement 43
1, 4, 11, 12,
16, 17, 31,
32, 41–43
103 Scott, Talmaki,
Stolarczyk,
Talmaki_2,
Simicevic
1, 4, 11, 12,
16, 17, 31,
32, 41, 42
43
2, 5, 15, 33,
34, 37, 40
103 Scott, Talmaki,
Stolarczyk,
Talmaki_2,
Simicevic, Cote
2, 5, 15, 33,
34, 37, 40

6, 8 103 Scott, Talmaki,
Stolarczyk,
Talmaki_2,
Simicevic, Beer
6, 8
9 103 Scott, Talmaki,
Stolarczyk,
Talmaki_2,
Simicevic, Szwilski
9
22 103 Scott, Talmaki,
Talmaki_2,
Simicevic
22
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–6, 8,
9, 11, 12,
15–17, 22,
31–34, 37,
40–42
43

Appeal 2020-003554
Application 15/222,255

22
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-IN-PART