Wenming Zheng et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

2018009044 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2020)

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.
14/770,087 08/24/2015 Wenming ZHENG HRMN/0187USP 5079
98031 7590 09/30/2020
Artegis Law Group, LLP - Harman
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
HUYNH, VAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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):
jmatthews@artegislaw.com
kcruz@artegislaw.com
sjohnson@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte WENMING ZHENG, HAITIAN ZHU,
ZONGCAI RUAN, and YANKUN ZHANG
____________________

Appeal 2018-009044
Application 14/770,087
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15. 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 Harman International Industries,
Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-009044
Application 14/770,087

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant generally describes the disclosed and claimed invention as
relating to road region detection. Spec. ¶ 1.2
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method for detecting road regions, comprising:
obtaining a first image captured by a camera at a first time
point and a second image captured by the camera at a second
time point;
converting the first image and the second image into a first
top view and a second top view, respectively;
obtaining a movement vector matrix which substantially
represents movement of a road region relative to the camera
between the first time point and the second time point; and
determining whether a candidate point belongs to the road
region by determining whether a position change of the candidate
point between the first top view and the second top view
conforms to the movement vector matrix.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Nov. 3, 2017 (“Final
Act.”); the Advisory Action mailed Jan. 25, 2018 (“Advisory Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed Apr. 5, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed Sept.
17, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 16, 2018
(“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed Aug. 24, 2015 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2018-009044
Application 14/770,087

3
Rejection on Appeal3
Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Yang (US 2010/0246901 A1; published Sept. 30,
2010).4
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by the arguments in Appellant’s briefs is
whether Yang discloses the limitation “determining whether a candidate
point belongs to the road region by determining whether a position change
of the candidate point between the first top view and the second top view
conforms to the movement vector matrix,” as recited in claim 1, and as
similarly recited in claim 8 and claim 155 (hereinafter, “the disputed
limitation”).6

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq. effective on March 16, 2013. Because this
application is a U.S. national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371
of international application PCT/CN2013/072054 filed on Mar. 1, 2013 (see
Abstract), the Examiner examined the claims under the pre-AIA version of
35 U.S.C. § 102. Final Act. 3.
4 The Examiner objected to claims 7 and 14 as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but stated they would be allowable if written in
independent form including the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. Final Act. 8.
5 In claim 15, the disputed limitation is recited as the function in the means-
plus-function limitation “means for determining whether a candidate point
belongs to the road region by determining whether a position change of the
candidate point between the first top view and the second top view conforms
to the movement vector matrix.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
6 Appellant argues claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15 together, focusing on claim 1.
Appeal Br. 10–13. Thus, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-009044
Application 14/770,087

4
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yang. Final Act. 4 (citing Yang, Fig. 5, ¶¶ 72, 73, 76–79). In
the Answer, the Examiner finds that Yang discloses determining the
movement vector between the bird’s eye view images TI1 and TI2, which
“represents the movement vector (or change) from the set of points at t1 to
the set [of] points at t2.” Ans. 2–3 (citing Yang, Figs. 6–9, ¶¶ 77–79). The
Examiner also finds, based on paragraph 45 of the Specification, that
“determining whether a candidate point belongs to the road region,” as
claimed, “is the same as determining whether a candidate point belongs to
the road surface as disclosed by Yang.” Id. at 3 (citing Yang, Figs. 6–9,
¶¶ 74, 78–79) (emphasis added). The Examiner also cites paragraph 82 of
Yang, which states:
As mentioned above, if given two target feature points are
located on the ground surface, the movement vectors of the two
feature points on the bird’s eye view coordinate plane are
uniform. However, if the feature points are located on a three-
dimensional object, such uniformity between the movement
vectors is, in principle, broken.
Ans. 3. The Examiner then finds that “the uniformity is interpreted as
conformance to the movement vector matrix.” Id. And, therefore, the
Examiner finds that Yang discloses
[w]hen the uniformity is broken and thus the feature points are
not moving in uniform with others (or, in claim language, the
feature points do not conform to the movement matrix), the
feature points (i.e., ‘the candidate point’) are not on the road
surface (i.e., not in the road region).
Id.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631
Appeal 2018-009044
Application 14/770,087

5
(Fed. Cir. 1987); see also In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2007). “[A]nticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the
reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated
limitation . . . .” Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d
1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Inherency, however, may not be established
by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Cont’l Can Co. USA,
Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting In re
Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellant makes several arguments that the Examiner erred in finding
Yang discloses the disputed limitation of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10–13;
Reply Br. 3–5. For the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred.
First, Appellant argues, and we agree, that Yang discloses a technique
for detecting a three-dimensional object that appears to be rising up from the
road surface in an image and estimating an area where the three-dimensional
object appears. Appeal Br. 10 (citing Yang, Abstract; see also Yang, Fig. 5;
¶¶ 1, 5, 71). Appellant also argues, and we agree, that Yang’s technique of
determining whether a target feature point on the bird’s eye view image is
the ground feature point “is concerned only with whether a feature point is
on the ground or above ground (i.e., a feature point on a three-dimensional
obstacle),” instead of “whether a point is within a region of an image that
corresponds to a road.” Id. at 11; Reply Br. 3 (citing Yang ¶¶ 74–79, 82–
100). Appellant further argues that “in the instant [a]pplication, a point may
be on the ground but not in a road region,” and that “the [a]pplication does
not disclose that a road region may correspond to any type of ground
Appeal 2018-009044
Application 14/770,087

6
surface, whether or not that ground surface is within a road region,” as the
Examiner appears to suggest. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 5. In view of the
Specification, we agree with Appellant. See Spec. Fig. 1, ¶¶ 3, 33, 45.
Thus, Appellant argues, and we agree, that “determining whether a feature
point is a ground feature point (e.g., whether the feature point is on a road
surface), as disclosed in Yang, is not equivalent to determining whether a
point belongs to a road region, as recited in claim 1.” Reply Br. 5.
Second, Appellant argues that the technique of Yang does not disclose
determining whether a position change of a point between images captured
at different times conforms to a movement vector matrix, as recited in claim
1. Appeal Br. 12. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner maps
the recited road region to the road surface within the image in Yang, maps
the recited candidate point to the feature point in Yang, maps the recited
position change of the candidate point to the movement vectors of the
feature points in Yang, and further maps the recited movement vector matrix
to the movement vectors of the feature points in Yang. Id. at 12 (citing
Advisory Act. 2; Final Act. 4). Thus, Appellant argues, and we agree, that
the Examiner improperly maps two different elements recited in claim 1
(i.e., the candidate point position change and the movement vector matrix) to
the same teaching in Yang, the movement vector of the feature points, which
is the same as the position change of the feature point. Id. at 12–13; Reply
Br. 4.
Third, in regard to the Examiner’s finding in the Answer (citing
paragraph 82 of Yang) that the existence of uniformity between the
movement vectors of two given feature points in Yang could be mapped to
determining whether there is conformity between the position change of a
Appeal 2018-009044
Application 14/770,087

7
candidate point and the movement vector matrix, as recited in claim 1,
Appellant argues as follows:
Notably, the uniformity feature in Yang is concerned only
with whether the movement vectors of the two given feature
points are uniform in direction and magnitude. Neither one of the
movement vectors is designated as the authoritative vector to
which other movement vectors are compared in order to
determine conformity. Indeed, Yang is silent regarding
determining which of two given feature points is on the ground
and which is not on the ground based on whether movement
vectors of the given two feature points are uniform. By contrast,
the pending claims explicitly require that the position change of
a candidate point is checked for conformity to the movement
vector matrix, and a determination is made regarding whether the
candidate point is in the road region based on this conformity
check. Yang contains no such teachings.
Reply Br. 4–5. In view of the disclosures of paragraphs 80 and 82 of Yang,
we agree with Appellant that neither one of the movement vectors is
designated as the authoritative vector to which other movement vectors are
compared to determine conformity and that Yang is silent regarding
determining which of two given feature points is on the ground and which is
not on the ground based on whether movement vectors of the given two
feature points are uniform. Thus, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument
that the uniformity feature in Yang does not disclose the disputed limitation
of claim 1.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). For the same reasons, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2018-009044
Application 14/770,087

8
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8 and 157, and dependent claims
2–6 and 9–13, under § 102(b).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–13,
15
102 Yang 1–6, 8–13,
15

REVERSED

7 As noted supra, claim 15 recites the disputed limitation as the function in
the “means for determining” limitation, which is a means-plus-function
limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6. Because Yang does not
disclose the function of “determining whether a candidate point belongs to
the road region by determining whether a position change of the candidate
point between the first top view and the second top view conforms to the
movement vector matrix,” Yang does not disclose or anticipate the disputed
limitation of claim 15 for this reason as well.