Ex Parte Lulue et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

13766480 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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.
102300 4791
EXAMINER
LE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/766,480 02/13/2013
32697 7590 06/22/2017
OFFICE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
SPAWARSYSCEN, PACIFIC CODE 36000
53510 SILVERGATE AVE. ROOM 103
SAN DIEGO, CA 92152-5765
Daniel L. Lulue
06/22/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL L. LULUE, DEBORAH GILL-HESSELGRAVE,
JOHN KAMMERER, and NEIL ACANTILADO
Appeal 2016-007898
Application 13/766,4801
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claim 1. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies The United States of America, as represented
by the Secretary of the Navy, and inventors Daniel L. Lulue, Deborah Gill-
Hesselgrave, John Kammerer, and Neil Acantilado, as the real parties in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 19, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
Appeal 2016-007898
Application 13/766,480
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The claim relates to a system and method for maintaining situational
awareness about an event. See Abstract.
Independent Claim 1, the only claim pending in the application, is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A method of distributing information pertaining to a
critical event of a project or operation, said method comprising
the steps of:
A) networking a plurality of Command and Control
(C&C) units, each said C&C unit having a geographic area of
responsibility (AOR), at least one receiving device, a database
of digital maps that is representative of said AOR, an image
registration unit connected to said database and said at least one
receiving device, and a processor, said critical event within said
AOR;
B) extracting a digital reference map corresponding to
the location of said event from said database from one of said
plurality of C&C units;
C) accepting said digital reference map at said image
registration unit;
D) registering the pixel location of said critical event on a
digital grid superimposed on said digital reference map at said
image registration unit;
E) receiving said information from said receiving device,
at said image registration unit;
F) displaying said information at said digital reference
map at said pixel location, said step F) being accomplished at
said image registration unit and resulting in an updated digital
reference map;
(filed Aug. 12, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 15,
2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed Sept. 24, 2015, “Final Act.”), and
the Specification (filed Feb. 13, 2013, “Spec.”) for their respective details.
2
Appeal 2016-007898
Application 13/766,480
G) said information including a message log for display
at said pixel location;
H) transmitting said updated digital reference map and
said message log from said image registration unit to said
database for direct transmission via the network of said step A)
to the remainder of said plurality of said C&C units when said
pixel location is included within said AOR of said plurality of
said C&C units.
References and Rejection
Claim 1 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kraus (Kraus, et al., US 2002/0196248 Al, Dec. 26,
2002) and Bailey (Bailey, et al, US 2008/0052142 Al, Feb. 28, 2008).
Final Act. 6—12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of Claim 1 in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded of error.
Display of information pertaining to a critical event.
Appellants contend the claimed Step F is not taught, i.e., Kraus fails to
teach display of information pertaining to a critical event at the pixel
location. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue Kraus discloses a display screen
comprising pixels, but that Kraus displays the relevant information on a
map, but not at the pixel location. Id. at 9.
The Examiner finds Kraus teaches an image registration unit updates a
digital reference map by changing an object’s geographical location and that
the reference map is constantly displayed on a display device. Ans. 9.
Appellants contend maps by themselves are relatively ineffective for
tracking the prosecution of a critical event by a plurality of networked C&C
3
Appeal 2016-007898
Application 13/766,480
Units, especially if there is more than one critical event being prosecuted.
Reply Br. 9. Appellants argue that to solve this problem, C&C Units need to
be networked relative to each other with a common framework (Appellants’
digital grid). Id. at 10. Appellants maintain Claim 1, Steps A) and D), cause
an image registration unit to register a pixel location on a digital grid, the
common framework. Id. Thereafter, Claim 1 causes information to be
transmitted using a pixel of the common framework digital grid. Id.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of Command and Control (C&C) units,”
each C&C unit “having a geographical area of responsibility (AOR).” A
command and control unit is described: “[e]ach aircraft carrier is an
autonomous command and control unit with respect to its own aircraft.”
Spec., 17. Claim 1 further recites “a database of digital [reference] maps
that is representative of said AOR.” Claim 1 recites the steps of “accepting
[a] digital reference map at [an] image registration unit” and “registering the
pixel location of [a] critical event on a digital grid superimposed on said
digital reference map.”
The Examiner finds Kraus teaches the claimed digital reference map
and registering a pixel thereon. Ans. 9 (citing Kraus, ^fl[ 34, 49—51, and 63).
We disagree because we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
find an equivalence between the claimed and referenced “digital reference
map.”
Kraus teaches a “digital reference map” as a database of digital
images of an area based on digitized aerial photography. Kraus, 134.
According to Kraus, “[m]aps are orthogonal representations of the earth’s
surface.” Kraus, 135. Kraus discloses “[a]n orthogonal photograph is a
result of processing of two aerial photographs taken with two cameras
having their axis at the time of exposure pointing down at different
4
Appeal 2016-007898
Application 13/766,480
angles to the normal to ground.” Kraus, 136. Krause further teaches “the
geographical location of each point in the digital reference map is known
because its position vector with respect to visual features of reference
landmarks . . . can be determined accurately.” Kraus, 137. Kraus continues
“[t]he coordinates (pixels) of an object 15 can be assigned . . . according to
an objects appearance in an image . . . acquired by imaging device 13 on
board of an airborne vehicle.” Kraus, 137.
The reference maps of Kraus require “visual features of reference
landmarks.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would not believe that
photographs of the ocean (the claimed AOR of aircraft carrier C&C units)
were likely to contain visual reference landmarks.
DECISION
The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 man is REVERSED.
REVERSED
5