AEROVIRONMENT, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2020001935 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 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.
15/080,389 03/24/2016 Macdonald John Peebles AERO-VI1409 4428
68236 7590 01/04/2021
Concept IP LLP
11601 Wilshire Blvd.
Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025
EXAMINER
SOOD, ANSHUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patents@brooksacordia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MACDONALD JOHN PEEBLES, ANDREW MARTIN,
CHARLES LAWRENCE BAKER, DAISY WANG,
KEVIN JAY AGUILAR, MATTHEW ALLEN HANNA,
BRIAN YOUNG, ERIC SORNBORGER, and
ERIC JAMES AAGAARD
__________

Appeal 2020-001935
Application 15/080,389
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, 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 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, and 19–33. Claims

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
AeroVironment, Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 2, filed June 19, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001935
Application 15/080,389

2
4, 11, and 18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to Unmanned Aerial Systems
(UAS), and more particularly to UAS identification of targets.” Spec.2
1:13–14. Claims 1, 12, 19, and 27 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A targeting method, comprising:
capturing, by a first processor, a first video of a scene about a
potential targeting coordinate by a first video sensor on a
first aircraft, the first aircraft comprising the first
processor, and the first processor in communication with
the first video sensor;
transmitting, by the first processor, the first video and associated
potential targeting coordinate;
receiving, by a second processor, the first video on a first display
in communication with the second processor, the second
processor also receiving the potential targeting coordinate;
selecting, by the second processor, the potential targeting
coordinate to be an actual targeting coordinate for a second
aircraft in response to viewing the first video on the first
display, wherein the selected actual targeting coordinate is
a geographical coordinate corresponding to a pixel in the
field of view (FOV) of the captured first video; and
guiding, by the second processor, the second aircraft toward the
actual targeting coordinate, the second aircraft comprising
a third processor;

2 Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Mar. 24, 2016.
Appeal 2020-001935
Application 15/080,389

3
capturing, by the third processor, a second video of the scene by
a second video sensor on the second aircraft; and
displaying, by the second processor, the second video proximate
to the first video as the second aircraft approaches the
actual targeting coordinate;
wherein a positive identification of a target corresponding to the
actual targeting coordinate is maintained from selection of
the actual targeting coordinate to displaying the second
video proximate to the first video, and wherein a positive
identification transfer occurs when the target is in the first
video and the second video.

THE REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, and 19–33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Abershitz (US 2012/0210853 A1, published Aug.
23, 2012) and Shehata (US 2015/0142211 A1, published May 21, 2015).

ANALYSIS
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 2, 3,
5–10, 13–17, 20–26, and 28–33 and independent claims 12, 19, and 27
separate from those presented for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–15.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2, 3, 5–10, 12–17,
and 19–33 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2018).
The Examiner finds that Abershitz discloses a targeting method
having most of the steps of claim 1 including (among other limitations): (1)
capturing and transmitting a first video, by a first processor, of a scene about
a potential targeting coordinate from a first aircraft; (2) receiving, by a
second processor, the first video and the potential targeting coordinate; and
(3) selecting, by the second processor, the potential targeting coordinate to
Appeal 2020-001935
Application 15/080,389

4
be an actual targeting coordinate for a second aircraft in response to viewing
the first video, wherein the selected actual targeting coordinate is a
geographical coordinate corresponding to a pixel in the field of view (FOV)
of the captured first video. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Abershitz ¶¶ 24, 26, 27,
43, 52, 118, 119–111, 122, 125, 132–140).3
Appellant contends that “the prior art, as cited by the Examiner, does
not disclose or suggest” the above enumerated limitation (3) because “the
Examiner-cited ‘location’ of Abershitz is not the claimed ‘geographic
coordinate’” and “the Examiner-cited ‘location A’ of Abershitz is not
disclosed or suggested to be a ‘geographic’ or otherwise specific location in
Abershitz.” Appeal Br. 10. More particularly, Appellant argues that
“Abershitz discloses a target zone and that a launched UAV is sent to scan a
general target area around this zone, i.e., Abershitz does not disclose or
suggest a specific geographical coordinate used to guide a second aircraft
to this specific geographical coordinate.” Id. at 11 (citing Abershitz ¶ 132);
see also id. at 12–14.
This argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner correctly responds that “paragraph
[0132] is not cited in the Final Rejection . . . as supposedly teaching the
limitation in question” and thus, “Appellant’s interpretation of paragraph
[0132] of Abershitz is of no consequence to the rejection in question.” Ans.
3–4.4 Notably, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner cites to paragraphs

3 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated Dec. 17, 2018. The Examiner
relies on the teachings of Shehata for limitations other than those discussed
above. Id. at 5–6.
4 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Nov. 8, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001935
Application 15/080,389

5
26, 27, 125, and 137–140 for the limitation at issue (the above-enumerated
limitation (3)) of claim 1. See Final Act. 4–5. Also in the Final Office
Action, the Examiner points out that:
(1) “Abershitz clearly teaches that the UAV 400 gathers data to
‘calculate the position and thus the geographical location (with respect to
the aforesaid Earth-based coordinate system) of whatever object is in the
field of view FOV of the imaging system’” (id. at 2 (quoting with emphases
Abershitz ¶ 125));
(2) “Abershitz teaches that data on the location of the target is passed
to any number of additional UAVs to assist and/or take over tracking of the
target” (id. at 3 (citing Abershitz ¶¶ 137–140)); and
(3) “Abershitz teaches ‘additional UAV’s may be automatically
launched and homed in to [the target’s] location via the data provided by the
first UAV’” (id. (quoting Abershitz ¶ 140)). Thus, Appellant does not
apprise us of Examiner error.5
Appellant argues that
paragraph 125 of Abertshitz discloses that it is possible to
determine a geographical location of an object in the FOV of the
UAV. However, this paragraph does not address any actual
selection of a targeting coordinate that is a geographical
coordinate. Instead, it merely notes that geographical
coordinates can be determined from an image/video.
Appeal Br. 12.

5 As Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief, Appellant has waived any
arguments against the Examiner’s findings. See Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (“Informative”) (“[A]rguments that could
be made in the reply brief, but are not, are waived.”).
Appeal 2020-001935
Application 15/080,389

6
This argument is also unpersuasive. The Examiner correctly responds
that Abertshitz discloses “tracking the target,” “hom[ing] in to [the target’s]
location,” and “providing data corresponding to a location of said home-onto
infiltration agent to enable neutralization thereof.” Ans. 4 (quoting
Abertshitz ¶¶ 139, 140, 14–15, respectively). As discussed above,
Abertshitz uses an “Earth-based coordinate system” to identify the position
of the “object [that] is in the field of view FOV of the imaging system 410.”
Abertshitz ¶ 125. Thus, Abertshitz discloses actual selection of a targeting
coordinate––rather than merely suggesting a theoretical possibility of doing
such. See also Ans. 5. Once again, Appellant does not apprise us of
Examiner error.6
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious over
Abertshitz and Shehata. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1. We further sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–10, 12–17, and
19–33, which fall with claim 1.

6 See footnote 5 above.
Appeal 2020-001935
Application 15/080,389

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–10,
12–17, 19–33
103 Abershitz, Shehata 1–3, 5–10,
12–17, 19–
33

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