Ex parte Roth et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 19, 1998

08028013 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 8, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte DUANE ROTH and LARRY M. MORRISON
__________
Appeal No. 95-3071
Application No. 08/028,0131
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, KRASS and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 through 11, 14 and 15. Claims 3, 5,
8, 12, 13 and 16 have been indicated by the examiner as being
directed to allowable subject matter.
Appeal No. 95-3071
Application No. 08/028,013
2
The invention is directed to image processing. More
particularly, an image is processed in order to discriminate a
moving target from clutter within the image. Through the use
of target centering and leaky integration, increased target to
clutter ratio is attained.
Independent apparatus claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. An image processing device for discriminating a
target from clutter in an image containing a moving target,
said device comprising:
a means for detecting a moving target in an image input,
said means additionally having a target centering input;
a means, connected to said detecting means, for
extracting the edge content of said target;
a means, connected to said edge extracting means for
integrating the extracted edges of said image over time to
reject clutter, said integrating means providing an output
image;
a means, connected to said integrating means, for
estimating the optical flow of said target; and
a means, connected to receive as an input the output of
said estimating means and having its output connected as an
input to said detection means, for centering the target in
said image to permit the integrating means to increase the
target to clutter ratio.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Appeal No. 95-3071
Application No. 08/028,013
3
Lawton 5,109,425 Apr. 28,
1992
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth
paragraph, as failing to further limit the claim from which it
depends.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as anticipated by Lawton.
Claims 6, 7, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
as unpatentable over Lawton.
The final rejection of claims 1 through 16 under 35
U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn by the examiner and is not
before us on appeal.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we will summarily sustain the rejection of
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, because the
claim merely reiterates a portion of claim 1 from which it
depends, claim 9 is a fragment (clearly a further recitation
Appeal No. 95-3071
Application No. 08/028,013
4
stating that the means for centering “comprises...” or
“further comprise...” has been omitted) and appellants have
not contested this rejection. As such, we find that claim 9
fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim from
which it depends. Therefore, claim 9 is an improper dependent
claim within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 10 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), we will not sustain this rejection
because Lawton clearly does not disclose or otherwise teach
all of the claimed subject matter.
Independent claims 1 and 10 require, inter alia,
detection of a moving target and centering the target to
permit an integrating means to increase the target to clutter
ratio.
Lawton is directed to a machine vision method and
apparatus which permits a robot to determine movement in a 2-
dimensional field of view and follow a path to an intended
target. Therefore, unlike the instant claimed invention,
Lawton is not concerned with a moving target. In Lawton, the
target remains stationary and the robot moves. Further, we
find no evidence in Lawton of any centering of a target in
Appeal No. 95-3071
Application No. 08/028,013
5
order to permit an integration means to increase the target to
clutter ratio, as claimed.
The examiner somehow equates either the best path to a
final destination or the desired destination, or view thereof,
in Lawton to the claimed target centering. However, there is
no discussion in Lawton regarding target centering and, to the
extent the examiner is reading the focus of Lawton on the
final destination as somehow centering a target, we disagree.
There is absolutely no indication in Lawton that the target,
or final destination, is kept centered in the image, as
claimed, and it is unclear, even giving the term “centering
the target” its broadest possible meaning, how the examiner
interprets Lawton’s best path to a final destination as
“centering the target.”
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
1, 2, 4, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Turning now to the rejection of claims 6, 7, 14 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Lawton, we also will
not sustain this rejection. Whether or not it would have been
obvious to employ an integrator, of the specific form recited
in claims 6, 7, 14 and 15, in Lawton, Lawton clearly fails to
Appeal No. 95-3071
Application No. 08/028,013
6
disclose or suggest the centering of a moving target, as
discussed supra.
We have sustained the rejection of claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph but we have not sustained the
rejections based on prior art.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 95-3071
Application No. 08/028,013
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 95-3071
Application No. 08/028,013
8
Office of Counsel (Code C003P)
Naval Air Warfare Center
Weapons Division
China Lake, CA 93555-6001