Ex Parte Holicki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2016

13091703 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/091,703 04/21/2011
23911 7590 07/28/2016
CROWELL & MORING LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
P.O. BOX 14300
WASHINGTON, DC 20044-4300
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Holicki
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
010409.63502US 5128
EXAMINER
WALKER, JARED T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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):
edocket@crowell.com
tche@crowell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL HOLICKI, NIKOLAUS SCHWEYER,
JOHANNES SPETH, and JUERGEN ZOZ
Appeal2014-009343
Application 13/091,703
Technology Center 2400
Before: JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 3-8. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
See App. Br. 19. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LFK-
Lenkflugkoerpersysteme GmbH. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009343
Application 13/091,703
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to a method for automatically
generating a three-dimensional reference model as terrain information for an
imaging device. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method for automatically generating a three-
dimensional reference model as terrain information for a seeker
head of an unmanned missile with a predetermined field of view
comprising the steps:
a) providing a three-dimensional terrain model formed from
model elements, which has been obtained using satellite and/or
aerial reconnaissance;
b) specifying position data of the imaging device at least at one
planned position and a direction vector from the planned position
of the imaging device to a predetermined target point in the three-
dimensional terrain model;
c) generating a three-dimensional reference model of the three
dimensional terrain model, wherein only model elements and
sections of model elements from the terrain model are
incorporated into the reference model that, in a viewing direction
of the direction vector from the planned position of the imaging
device, are not covered by other model elements or are not
located outside a field of view of the imaging device, wherein
accuracy information reflecting position accuracy
of a respective model element is respectively assigned to
the model elements of the three-dimensional terrain
model, and
model elements with a better accuracy are used in
the generation of the three-dimensional reference model,
and model elements with poorer accuracy are not
incorporated into the reference model.
2
Appeal2014-009343
Application 13/091,703
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Gravseth et al.
Murao
Neumann et al.
Han et al.
US 8,306,273 Bl
US 2002/0004710 Al
US 2004/0105573 Al
US 2006/0120590 Al
Rejections
Nov. 6, 2012
Jan. 10,2002
June 3, 2004
June 8, 2006
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Han and Neumann. Final Act. 3-7.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Han, Neumann, and Murao. Final
Act. 7-10.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Han, Neumann, and Gravseth. Final
Act. 10-12.
Dispositive Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Han and
Neumann teaches or suggests "accuracy information reflecting position
accuracy of a respective model element is respectively assigned to the model
elements of the three-dimensional terrain model," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the combination of Han and Neumann does not teach or suggest assigning
3
Appeal2014-009343
Application 13/091,703
accuracy information reflecting position accuracy of a respective model
element to the model elements of the three-dimensional terrain model, as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 5, 7-10; Reply Br. 3-7. According to
Appellants, Han teaches "the clutter rejection removes image processing
artifacts in the input image that 'are due to some local variations of the
contrast' and is 'designed ... to eliminate those edge pixels with random
edge orientations."' App. Br. 9 (citing Han i-f 95). Appellants contend
"[ e ]dge consistency between pixels, however, does not involve accuracy
information reflecting position accuracy." Id.
In response, the Examiner finds:
[P]ositional accuracy information is not defined in the
specification therefore is given is plain meaning under broadest
reasonable interpretation [MPEP 2111.01]. Position, as defined
in Merriam Webster, is "the point or area occupied by a physical
object" or "a certain arrangement of bodily parts". Accuracy, as
defined in Merriam Webster, is "freedom from mistake or error".
Therefore, positional accuracy can be interpreted as a certain
arrangement of bodily parts free from mistake or error. Under
this interpretation of positional accuracy information, Han's
clutter rejection is used to correct errors in the position of the
objects therefore it uses the positional accuracy information to
improve the generation of the objects in the 3d model generation
taught by Neumann.
Ans. 18. We disagree.
Initially, we find the Examiner's construction of the phrase "position
accuracy" is inconsistent with Appellants' Specification and, therefore,
unreasonable. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en bane). Appellants' invention relates to "automatically generating
a three-dimensional reference model as terrain information for an imaging
device with a predetermined field of view, in particular for a seeker head of
4
Appeal2014-009343
Application 13/091,703
an unmanned missile equipped with a camera." Spec. 2. Appellants'
Specification teaches:
Modem missile systems frequently use models of a target
for target recognition and target tracking. These models
represent a description of the target structure and optionally the
target environment, and are generated before deployment in a
mission planning. To allow flexible selection of the approach
profiles and to ensure a high strike accuracy, these models must
also define the three-dimensional structure of the target and the
target environment.
Spec. 3. As the Examiner correctly noted (Ans. 18), Appellants'
Specification does not expressly define "position accuracy." However, with
respect to accuracy information for model elements, the Specification
consistently uses the term "accuracy" to refer to how precisely the physical
dimensions (e.g., height) and location correspond to the physical dimensions
and location of the structure represented by the model element. See Spec.
i-fi-14---6, 10, 23, 28. As such, based on the plain meaning of the terms in light
of the Specification, "position accuracy" refers to how precisely or
accurately a position of a model element within the three-dimensional terrain
model corresponds to a position of the structure represented by the model
element within the target environment.
Further, we disagree with the Examiner's finding (Ans. 18) that Han's
clutter rejection is used to correct errors in the position of the objects. Han
teaches using clutter rejection to remove clutter edges from an input image.
Han i-fi-1 94--95. Han teaches clutter edges may be "due to some local
variations of the contrast, such as tree lines, bushes, and many other nature-
made texture patterns." Han i195. Han further teaches that "[t]hese type of
clutter edges have a common characteristic, that is, the lack of edge direction
5
Appeal2014-009343
Application 13/091,703
consistency between the neighboring edge pixels." Han il 95. Han teaches
"[t]he clutter-rejection filter is thus designed to explore edge consistency
within each neighborhood region and to eliminate those edge pixels with
random edge orientations." Han i-f 95. The Examiner's findings fail to show
how eliminating edge pixels with random edge orientations corrects errors in
the position of the objects or otherwise relates to assigning accuracy
information to model elements.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
and claims 3, 7, and 8 which depend from claim 1.
Each of claims 4--6 depends, directly or indirectly, from independent
claim 1. The Examiner has not established on this record that the secondary
references relied on in rejecting these claims cure the deficiencies of Han as
set forth above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 4--6 for the reasons discussed supra.
We do not reach Appellants' further allegations of error because we
find the issue discussed above with respect to claim 1 to be dispositive.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6