Ex Parte NIXON

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

13873818 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/873,818 04/30/2013 Stuart William NIXON
22850 7590 09/26/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
415425US91CONT 2877
EXAMINER
MCINNISH, KEVIN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
OPA
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STUART WILLIAM NIXON
Appeal2017-000988
Application 13/873,818 1
Technology Center 2400
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 2-
15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to photogrammetry wherein there is
minimal overlap between the detailed images forming a strip and the
1 The real party in interest is nearmap Australia PTY, LTD. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-000988
Application 13/873,818
resolution of the detailed images are of higher resolution to the overview
resolution. Spec. para. 77.
Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
2. A method of creating a photomap of a survey area, the
method comprising:
(a) flying an aircraft above the survey area along a set of
substantially parallel flight lines;
(b) capturing, during flight and via at least one overview
camera carried by the aircraft, a sequence of overview images,
each overview image depicting an overview area of the survey
area, consecutive overview areas along each flight line
overlapping longitudinally by a first overlap proportion,
adjacent overview areas associated with adjacent flight lines
overlapping laterally;
( c) capturing, during flight and via a first array of detail
cameras carried by the aircraft, a sequence of detail image
strips, each detail image strip comprising at least one detail
image, each detail image depicting at least a portion of an
overview area, each detail image having a higher resolution
than a resolution of the overview image corresponding to the
overview area, consecutive detail image strips along each flight
line overlapping longitudinally by a second overlap proportion,
the second overlap proportion being smaller than the first
overlap proportion, adjacent detail image strips associated with
adjacent flight lines overlapping laterally, adjacent detail
images within each strip overlapping laterally;
( d) identifying, in a plurality of the overview images and
detail images, common features corresponding to common
ground points;
( e) generating, via bundle adjustment and from the
identified ground points, an
exterior orientation associated with each detail image; and
( f) merging, based on at least some of the generated
exterior orientations, at least some of the detail images to create
the photomap.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2017-000988
Application 13/873,818
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Knopp
Cheng
Leberl
US 2005/0031197 Al
US 2006/0077255 Al
US 2009/0041368 Al
REJECTIONS
Feb. 10,2005
Apr. 13, 2006
Feb. 12,2009
Claims 2--4, 6-10, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Leberl in view of Knopp. Non-Final Act. 9-13.
Claims 5, 11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Leberl in view of Knopp. Non-Final Act. 13-14.
OPINION
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the combination of Leberl and Knopp
does not teach or suggest the limitation of "the second overlap proportion
being smaller than the first overlap proportion" as recited in claim 2.
In the Non-Final Action, the Examiner directs us to Figure 14 and
paragraph 87 of Leberl for teaching this limitation. Non-Final Act. 10-11.
In particular the Examiner finds:
(Figure 14 illustrates an example of overlapping images and
Paragraphs [0057]-[0058] disclose that a plurality of primary and
secondary camera systems may be included as desired.
Paragraph [0096] discloses that the primary and secondary
images may be collected at different resolutions.).
However, while Leberl discloses increasing redundancy
for image analysis (Paragraphs [0037], [0087], and [0094]),
where Leberl does not explicitly teach, Knopp teaches the second
overlap proportion being smaller than the first overlap proportion
3
Appeal2017-000988
Application 13/873,818
(Knopp Paragraph [0099] discloses sparse stereo and full-stereo
overlaps which have different percentages of overlap.)
Non-Final Act. 11.
We find Appellant's argument persuasive. We do not find any
support for the disputed limitation in Leberl's paragraphs 57, 58, and 87.
See App. Br. 6; Non-Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds that Knopp teaches
the second overlap proportion being smaller than the first overlap. Non-
Final Act. 11. But we find no such support in Knopp and, accordingly,
Knopp does not cure the above cited deficiency. We agree with Appellant
that in Knopp there is no disclosure of the two types of images being used
together (see App. Br. 6-10 citing to paragraphs 97 and 99) and we note that
this is further supported by Knopp' s Abstract stating that the imagery is
acquired from "full or sparse stereo" ( emphasis added).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claim 2 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-15. 2
2 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner should consider
whether the limitations of "at least one detail image" is vague and indefinite
because in light of the Specification there should be at least two images to
have an overlap. Furthermore the Examiner should consider whether the
limitation of "the second overlap proportion being smaller than the first
overlap proportion" is vague and indefinite because as described in the
Specification (see Spec. 18, Figs. 6A-6B), and claim 2, the second overlap
proportion is in reference to the overlap of detail images not the overlap of
"detail image strips." Consequently the Examiner should further consider
whether the claims should be rejected under 112 1st paragraph for lack of
written description.
4
Appeal2017-000988
Application 13/873,818
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
5