CLOUDPARC, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 12, 2020

14943025 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 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.
14/943,025 11/17/2015 Steven David Nerayoff 44726.21642 5189
30734 7590 11/12/2020
BakerHostetler
Washington Square, Suite 1100
1050 Connecticut Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5304
EXAMINER
TALLMAN, BRIAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/12/2020 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):
edervis@bakerlaw.com
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
patents@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHEN DAVID NERAYOFF and THOMPSON S. WONG
____________________

Appeal 2020-003009
Application 14/943,025
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 11, 17 through 23, and 27
through 34. 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(a). According to Appellant, Cloudparc, Inc. is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003009
Application 14/943,025
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system to use cameras to identify and
track vehicles and control the use of parking spaces used by the vehicles.
Spec. ¶¶ 2–6. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of tracking use of a plurality of destination
locations, the method comprising:
receiving, from a first camera of an unmanned air vehicle
that is configured to be autonomously operated, at least one first
image of a first vehicle that is occupying a first destination
location of the plurality of destination locations and a first time
at which the at least one first image was captured;
zooming in, after the first time, the first camera of the
unmanned air vehicle;
receiving, from the first camera while the first camera is
zoomed in, at least one second image of a first parking display
ticket within or on the first vehicle and a second time at which
the at least one second image was captured;
reading first parking information contained on the first
parking display ticket in the at least one second image for the
first vehicle, wherein the first parking information comprises
one or more of a parking duration, a parking expiration time, an
amount paid, a date of purchase of the first parking display
ticket, and a time of purchase of the first parking display ticket;
determining, based on the second time that the at least
one second image was captured and the first parking
information, that the occupation of the first destination location
by the first vehicle violates a restriction;
determining a unique identifier of the first vehicle
occupying the first destination location;
indicating the unique identifier of the first vehicle, the
restriction violated by the first vehicle, and at least some of the
first parking information;
receiving, from the first camera of the unmanned air
vehicle, at least one third image of a second vehicle that is
Appeal 2020-003009
Application 14/943,025
3
occupying a second destination location of the plurality of
destination locations and a third time at which the at least one
third image was captured;
zooming in, after the third time, the first camera of the
unmanned air vehicle;
receiving, from the first camera while the first camera is
zoomed in, at least one fourth image of a second parking
display ticket within or on the second vehicle and a fourth time
at which the at least one fourth image was captured;
reading second parking information contained on the
second parking display ticket in the at least one fourth image
for the second vehicle occupying the second destination
location, wherein the second parking information comprises
one or more of a parking duration, a parking expiration time, an
amount paid, a date of purchase of the second parking display
ticket, and a time of purchase of the second parking display
ticket; and
determining, based on the fourth time that the at least one
fourth image was captured and the second parking information,
that the occupation of the second destination location by the
second vehicle does not violate a restriction,
wherein all of the steps of the method are performed by
one or more processors.

REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3 through 6, 10 through 11, 18, 28
through 30, 32, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Mitschele (US 2008/0308631 A1, published Dec. 18,
2008), Yosuke (JP 2011-0703404A, published Apr. 7, 2011), Adams (US

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 27,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed March 13, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”);
Final Office Action mailed May 28, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 16, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-003009
Application 14/943,025
4
2010/0302359 A1, published Dec. 2, 2010) and Redmann
(US 2011/0226848 A1, published Sept. 22, 2011). Final Act. 10–21.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Mitschele, Yosuke, Adams, Redmann and
Huang (US 7,973,641, issued July 5, 2011). Final Act. 21.
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mitschele, Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, and Dee (US 2002/0008639 A1; published Jan. 24, 2002). Final
Act. 22–23.
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mitschele, Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, and Fraser (US 2010/0191584 A1, published July 29, 2010).
Final Act. 23
The Examiner rejected claims 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mitschele, Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, and Colak (US 2006/0250277 A1, published Nov. 9, 2010). Final
Act. 24–26.
The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mitschele, Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, Colak, and Sefton (US 2004/0233036 A1, published Nov. 25,
2004). Final Act. 26–28.
The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mitschele, Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, and Ioli (US 2005/0270178 A1, published Dec. 8, 2005). Final
Act. 28–29.

Appeal 2020-003009
Application 14/943,025
5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of all the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant states that:
independent claim 1 recites zooming in the first camera of the
unmanned air vehicle; receiving, from the first camera while the
first camera is zoomed in, at least one second image of a first
parking display ticket within or on the first vehicle; receiving,
from the first camera while the first camera is zoomed in, at
least one fourth image of a second parking display ticket within
or on the second vehicle; and determining that the occupation of
the second destination location by the second vehicle does not
violate a restriction.
Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that Mitschele relates to
a hand-held violation ticket issuing device that incorporates a camera so that
pictures can be printed on the ticket, and that the human ticket issuer
independently identifies there is a parking violation. Id. at 6–7. Thus,
Appellant argues that:
because independent claim 1 is directed towards an automated
system, at least one image must be captured before it is
determined that the occupation of the second destination
location by the second vehicle does not violate a restriction. In
other words, the system of Mitschele has no need to capture an
image when parking does not violate a restriction.
Id. at 6.
Further, Appellant argues that:
One of ordinary skill would not have combined
Mitschele with Yosuke, Adams, and Redmann without
hindsight reasoning. Specifically, one of ordinary skill would
not have combined Mitschele with Redmann and Hughes
because the system of Mitschele has no need for (1) images of
Appeal 2020-003009
Application 14/943,025
6
parking display tickets when there is no violation of a
restriction and (2) zooming of a camera to capture images of
parking display tickets, as a human independently identifies a
parking violation before an image is received in Mitschele.
Id. Additionally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale for
applying the teachings of the references, as merely being a combination of
old elements, a conclusory statement that cannot support a determination of
obviousness. Reply Br. 1–2.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments by identifying that
the rejection is based upon Mitschele in combination with the other
references. Ans. 4. The Examiner relies upon Mitschele to teach receiving a
plurality of images and Adams to teach a UAV where an item of interest is
observed, the camera is zoomed in. Id. at 4 (citing Mitschele, Fig. 4, ¶ 0014;
Adams ¶¶ 4, 28, 51). Further, the Examiner provides two rationales for
combining Mitschele, Yosuke, and Adams—first, that it is merely a
combination of old elements performing their known functions, and, second,
that zooming in to take the second picture allows for a more detailed still or
moving picture of the object so that no mistake in recording the vehicle is
made. Id. at 5–6 (citing Adams ¶ 51, Mitschele ¶ 15). Further, with regard
to the limitation concerning determining that a vehicle does not violate a
restriction, the Examiner cites to Redmann as teaching this limitation. Id. at
6 (citing Redmann, Figs. 2–4, 6; ¶¶ 54, 58, 65, 79, 82). Similarly, the
Examiner provides two rationales for combining Redmann, Mitschele,
Yosuke, and Adams—first,that it is merely a combination of old elements
performing their known functions, and, second, that it ensures that no
mistake in recording the vehicle is made and that is it is merely automating a
manual activity. Id. at 7–9 (citing Mitschele ¶15). Finally, on pages 11 and
12 of the Answer, the Examiner provides several rationales why the skilled
Appeal 2020-003009
Application 14/943,025
7
artisan would combine Mitschele, Yosuke, Adams, and Redmann.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Initially, we note that
Appellant’s arguments, on pages 5 and 6 of the Appeal Brief, all focus on
Mitschele not teaching the claimed feature of zooming in and determining a
vehicle does not violate a restriction. The Examiner’s rejection does not rely
upon Mitschele to teach the limitation of zooming in a camera to capture a
second image, rather the Examiner cites to Yosuke to teach aerial
surveillance to detect illegally parked vehicles, and Adams to teach using an
unmanned aerial for surveillance and when an object of interest is observed
the camera is zoomed in to take a more detailed picture. Final Act. 10 –11
(citing Yosuke ¶ 11, Adams, Figs. 2, 5, ¶¶ 2–4, 8, 51). We have reviewed
the teachings of Yosuke and Adams and concur with the Examiner’s
findings that Yosuke teaches a system to automatically identify parking
violations using aerial surveillance and that Adams teaches an autonomous
aerial vehicle (UAV) where when an object of interest is observed, the UAV
camera zooms in to obtain a more detailed image. Further, with respect to
the limitation regarding determining the vehicle does not violate a restriction
based upon a second image, the Examiner finds that Mitschele does not
explicitly teach that this is determined by the processor and cites to
Redmann as teaching a system that automatically determines whether or not
a violation has occurred. Id. at 13–14 (citing Redmann ¶¶ 20, 23, 54, 65–66,
79, 20, 23, 65, 66, 79). Appellant’s arguments have not addressed these
teachings and, as such, the arguments that Mitschele alone does not teach the
features of zooming in a camera and of determining no violation occurs from
an image, are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-003009
Application 14/943,025
8
Similarly, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument that
the skilled artisan would not have combined the references because
Mitschele’s system involves a human reading the parking information, so
there is no need to zoom in on use a processor to determine if a violation.
Appeal Br. 6–7, Reply Br. 1. We are not persuaded of error in this rejection
for several reasons. The arguments do not address the rationale identified by
the Examiner as to why the skilled artisan would have combined the features
of the various references, other than to say “using an unmanned air vehicle
to capture parking display was not recognized a[t] the time of the invention
and the Office relies on no less than four references to address independent
claim 1” and that obviousness cannot be sustained by conclusory statements.
Reply Br. 1–2. Here, as identified above, the Examiner has provided several
rationales for combining the references, supported by findings in the
individual references, thus we do not find that the conclusion of obviousness
is based upon conclusory statements, but rather that the Examiner has
provided a reasoned rationale based upon evidence. Further, inasmuch as
the Appellant is arguing that Mitschele, by having a person determine a
violation, teaches away from the combination of the references, we are not
persuaded. The premise of Appellant’s argument, that in Mitschele’s system
the human determines the violation, is not supported by all of the
embodiments of Mitschele. Rather Mitschele teaches an embodiment where
the hand-held device calculates the time the vehicle was in a location and
determines a violation. See Mitschele ¶ 19. Thus, we do not consider
Mitschele to discourage using automated systems for determining whether or
not a parking violation occurs. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 and claims 3 through 6,
10, 11, 18, 28 through 30, 32, and 34 grouped with claim 1.
Appeal 2020-003009
Application 14/943,025
9
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 9, 17, 19
through 23, 27, 31, and 33 are in error for the same reasons as claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the
same reasons as claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 11,
17 through 23, and 27 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:

Appeal 2020-003009
Application 14/943,025
10
Claim
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 10, 11, 18,
28–30, 32, 34
103 Mitschele,
Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann
1, 3–6, 10, 11, 18,
28–30, 32, 34

7 Mitschele,
Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, Huang
7
9, 31, 33 Mitschele,
Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, Dee
9, 31, 33
17 Mitschele,
Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, Fraser
17
19, 22, 23 103 Mitschele,
Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, Colak
19, 22, 23
20, 21 103 Mitschele,
Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, Colak,
Sefton
20, 21
27 103 Mitschele,
Yosuke, Adams,
Redmann, Ioli
27
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7, 9–11, 17–
23, 27–34

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