Ex Parte Omer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2017

13220535 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
13/220,535 08/29/2011 Thomas Omer 070001-068 1961
22204 7590 09/25/2017
NIXON PEABODY, LLP
799 Ninth Street, NW
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
EXAMINER
JOISIL, BERTEAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2017 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):
nppatent @ nixonpeabody. com
ipairlink @ nixonpeabody. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS OMER, THOMAS SZAREK, and
JEFFERSON C. MCBRIDE
Appeal 2017-005642
Application 13/220,535
Technology Center 2400
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1 and 3—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-005642
Application 13/220,535
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application “relates generally to camera-equipped
aircraft, for example unmanned aerial vehicles used for surveillance.”
Specification 11, filed August 29, 2011 (“Spec.”). Claims 1, 5, and 8 are
independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) comprising:
a fuselage;
a gimbal-mounted turret having one or more degrees of
freedom relative to the fuselage;
a camera disposed in the gimbal-mounted turret for motion
therewith in the one or more degrees of freedom; and
a central video image processor disposed in the fuselage
exteriorly of the gimbal-mounted turret, the central video image
processor configured to receive and process image data from the
camera, the central video image processor including one or more
modules selected from a de-mosaicing module, a video
conditioning module, an individual frame display information
module, and a template matching module.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Liu (US 2012/0320203 Al; Dec. 20, 2012),
Cunningham et al. (US 2007/0031151 Al; Feb. 8, 2007) (“Cunningham”),
and Nadir et al. (US 2012/0200703 Al; Aug. 9, 2012) (“Nadir”).
Final Office Action 5—9, mailed May 28, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. To the
2
Appeal 2017-005642
Application 13/220,535
extent consistent with the analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s
reasoning, findings, and conclusions set forth in the appealed action and the
Examiner’s Answer. Appellants have waived arguments Appellants failed
to timely raise or properly develop. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv),
41.41(b)(2).
Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Liu, Cunningham, and Nadir teaches or suggests “a camera disposed in the
gimbal-mounted turret for motion therewith in the one or more degrees of
freedom” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 7—8, filed October 20, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief 1—2, filed February 16, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
According to Appellants, the Examiner concedes Liu does not teach this
limitation but instead cites Cunningham as allegedly teaching “a camera
disposed in the gimbal-mounted turret.”1 App. Br. 7. Appellants
acknowledge Cunningham “discloses a gimbal-driven turret that houses
mirrors and other optical equipment.” Reply Br. 2; see App. Br. 7. But
Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Cunningham’s gimbal-
mounted turret includes a camera because Cunningham teaches transmitting
image and video signals. Reply Br. 2; see Examiner’s Answer 8 (citing
Cunningham || 19, 46), mailed February 9, 2017 (“Ans.”). Appellants
argue Cunningham’s discussion of image signals relates to the type of
information that may be encoded into a laser but does not teach or suggest a
1 In the Reply Brief, Appellants acknowledge Liu discloses a camera
protruding from a UAV but assert that Liu’s camera is fixed and that there is
no teaching or suggestion of a “gimbal-mounted turret” in Liu. Reply Br. 1
3
Appeal 2017-005642
Application 13/220,535
camera as claimed. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue Nadir
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation because Nadir teaches
cameras that are fixedly mounted on a support structure. App. Br. 7 (citing
Nadir Abstract, 115).
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. Even if we were to
agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Cunningham do not teach a
camera, the Examiner did not rely solely on Cunningham to teach this
limitation. Rather, the Examiner found Liu teaches a “camera” mounted on
a UAV and Cunningham teaches “the gimbal-mounted turret.” Final Act. 5—
6 (citing Liu H 7, 11, 18, Fig. 1 (item 11 (UAV), item 111 (camera));
Cunningham H 19, 46). The Examiner concluded it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Liu
and Cunningham to “produce an UAV capable of taking good quality
pictures from the unmanned aircraft.” Final Act. 6. Because Appellants’
arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection, Appellants have
not persuaded us that the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and conclusion are
erroneous.
Further, to the extent Appellants’ arguments attack Liu, Cunningham,
and Nadir individually, we find these arguments unpersuasive because, as
discussed above, the Examiner concluded the combined disclosures of Liu
and Cunningham teach or suggest this limitation. Final Act. 5—6 (citing Liu
7, 11, 18, Fig. 1; Cunningham H 19, 46). “[0]ne cannot show non­
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413,426 (CCPA1981).
4
Appeal 2017-005642
Application 13/220,535
Appellants further argue Nadir is not combinable with Liu or
Cunningham because Nadir disclaims and expressly teaches away from “a
camera disposed in the gimbal-mounted turret.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. In
support of this argument, Appellants point out that “Nadir repeatedly asserts
that the unmanned aerial vehicle has ‘no moving parts’” and Nadir’s
cameras are “fixedly mounted on the support structure forming a rigid
system.” App. Br. 8 (citing Nadir 115); see Reply Br. 3.
We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive. Contrary to Appellants’
argument, the Examiner did not rely on Nadir’s cameras for teaching “a
camera disposed in the gimbal-mounted turret.” Rather, as discussed above,
the Examiner relied on Liu for teaching a “camera” and Cunningham for
teaching “the gimbal-mounted turret.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner relied on
Nadir for “a central video image processor” because Nadir discloses an
imaging system with control boards that process images and are located in
the payload compartment of a UAV. Final Act. 5—6 (citing Nadir || 42, 46,
118-121, 136, 152, 162, 176, Figs. 1A-B, 5B-E).
In other words, Appellants’ argument rests on the incorrect assertion
that the Examiner’s combination modifies Nadir’s fixedly mounted cameras
to include Cunningham’s gimbal-mounted turret. To the contrary, the
Examiner’s combination modifies Liu’s UAV-mounted camera to include
Cunningham’s gimbal-mounted turret and incorporates Nadir’s control
boards to produce a UAV including a camera disposed in a gimbal-mounted
turret and a central video image processor for processing the camera images.
See Final Act. 5—6. Accordingly, we find Appellants’ argument
unpersuasive because the allegation that Nadir’s disclosures teach away
5
Appeal 2017-005642
Application 13/220,535
from Nadir’s cameras being disposed in a gimbal-mounted turret does not
correspond to the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants rely on the same argument that “Nadir is not properly
combinable with Liu or Cunningham” to rebut the Examiner’s findings that
Nadir teaches a central video image processor and its components. App.
Br. 8—9. But, for the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not
persuaded us that Nadir is not properly combinable with Liu. Accordingly,
Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings
that Nadir teaches the disputed “central video image processor” limitation
because Nadir discloses an imaging system comprising control boards that
process images and are located in the payload compartment of a UAV. Final
Act. 5-6 (citing Nadir 1142, 46, 118-121, 136, 152, 162, 176, Figs. 1A-B,
5B—E).
Lastly, without any further explanation, Appellants argue Liu’s
computer device and controller are devoid of any structure or functionality
corresponding to the disputed “central video image processor” limitation.
App. Br. 8. We find this conclusory argument unpersuasive because
Appellants have not adequately explained why Liu’s computer device and
controller do not disclose or suggest this limitation. Cf. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(explaining an appellant must advance substantive arguments beyond mere
recitation of the claim elements and naked assertions that the corresponding
elements are not found in the prior art). Accordingly, Appellants have not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s finding that Liu discloses an autopilot
controller that performs image processing and is located within the fuselage
of the UAV. Final Act. 6 (citing Liu H 18 (“an autopilot controller 112
6
Appeal 2017-005642
Application 13/220,535
installed in the [UAV]”), 23, 28, Fig. 1 (items 11 (UAV), 112 (autopilot
controller))); see also Liu |27 (disclosing that each photo can be corrected
on-the-fly by the autopilot controller to generate the calibrated-photo).
Moreover, as discussed above, the Examiner also finds Nadir teaches or
suggests this limitation, and Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
errs in this respect.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and the rejections of
independent claims 5 and 8, which were not argued separately with
particularity beyond the arguments advanced for claim 1. See App. Br. 7—
10; Reply Br. 1—3.
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 10
With respect to claims 3, 4, 7, and 10, the Examiner found Nadir’s
disclosure of a plurality of cameras mounted on a support structure teaches
an additional camera mounted to the aircraft and coupled to the central video
image processor, where the central video image processor is configured to
receive and process image data from the additional camera. Final Act. 7
(citing Nadir || 14, 132, 138). Appellants argue the Examiner provided no
explanation of Nadir’s alleged disclosures and no mapping of the limitations
of claims 3, 4, 7, and 10 to the teachings ofNadir. App. Br. 9. Appellants
do not, however, address substantively the evidence cited by the Examiner.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner
identified (1) that claims 3, 4, 7, and 10 are rejected as obvious over Liu,
Cunningham, and Nadir (see Final Act. 7—9); (2) where each limitation of
7
Appeal 2017-005642
Application 13/220,535
the rejected claims is shown in the prior art references by paragraph number
for claims 3 and 4, and applied the same mapping for claims 7 and 10, see
Final Act. 7 (citing Nadir H 14, 132, 134, 138; Liu Ull, 208), 8, 9; and (3)
a motivation to combine Liu, Cunningham, and Nadir in the claimed
manner, see Final Act. 6. Accordingly, we find the Examiner adequately put
Appellants on notice of the rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, and 10 and, thus,
disagree with Appellants that the Examiner’s burden of establishing aprima
facie case of obviousness has not been met. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Because Appellants’ conclusory arguments do not
substantively address the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and point out
with particularity the Examiner’s purported error, we find Appellants’
arguments unpersuasive. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652 F.3d at
1357; In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is
not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than
argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior
art.”).
For the reasons stated above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, 7, and 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, and 10.
Claims 6 and 9
Based on their previous argument that neither Liu, Cunningham nor
Nadir discloses “a central video image processor” as recited in claim 1,
Appellants further argue that Nadir is unable to teach “transmitting
information processed by the central image processor to a remote location”
as recited in claims 6 and 9. App. Br. 10.
8
Appeal 2017-005642
Application 13/220,535
We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive for the reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 1. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that
Nadir teaches “transmitting information processed by the central image
processor to a remote location” because Nadir discloses a transmitter
adapted to transmit said continuous video image to a Ground Control Station
(GCS). Final Act. 8 (citing Nadir || 55, 59, 83). Appellants have not
presented any persuasive evidence that the Examiner’s findings are
erroneous.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 6 and 9. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 9.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 1 and 3—10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9