Ex Parte Schultz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

13492107 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/492,107 06/08/2012 Stephen Schultz
30589 7590 11/01/2018
DUNLAP CODDING, P.C.
PO BOX 16370
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73113
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.
6338.190 7105
EXAMINER
LEE,JIMMYS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
docketing@dunlapcodding.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN SCHULTZ
Appeal 2018-004191 1
Application 13/492,1072
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-25. Final Act. l; App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
September 22, 2017) and Reply ("Reply Br.," filed March 12, 2018); the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed September 22, 2016); the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 11, 2018); and the originally-
filed Specification ("Spec.," filed June 8, 2012).
2 According to Appellant, the real parties-in-interest are Pictometry
International Corporation, Eagle View Technology Corporation, and Vista
Equity Partners. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004191
Application 13/492,107
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's recited methods and systems relate to "determining the
overlay position of geographic information system (GIS) data on video
frames in real time." App. Br. 2; see Spec. ,r 38 (defining "GIS data"). As
noted above, claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 1 and 15, directed to overlay
determining methods, and 23 and 24, directed to image capturing systems
and computer systems for processing video frames, are independent. App.
Br. Claims App 'x. Claims 2-14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1,
claims 16-22 depend directly or indirectly from claim 15, and claim 25
depends directly from claim 24. Id.
Claim 15, reproduced below, is representative.
15. A method, comprising the steps of:
capturing a series of video frames of a geographic area with one
or more cameras from a moving platform and storing the video
frames on one or more non-transitory computer readable medium
accessible by a computer system while also recording geographic
position data and orientation data of the one or more camera on
the one or more non-transitory computer readable medium, and
with interior geometry calibration data for the one or more
cameras being stored on the one or more non-transitory computer
readable medium, the video frames having pixels;
performing in real-time the following steps by the computer
system for the video frames:
associating the geographic position data and orientation data
with the video frames;
analyzing pixels of the video frames to generate geo-referencing
data for one or more video frames utilizing the geographic
position data, the orientation data and the interior geometry
calibration data, wherein the geo-referencing data comprises
geographic locations of pixels of the video frame;
2
Appeal2018-004191
Application 13/492,107
determining geographical boundaries of the video frames from
the geo-referencing data;
accessing geographic information system (GIS) data using the
determined geographical boundary of the video frames; and
determining an overlay position of the GIS data relative to the
video frames for which geo-referencing data is generated in real-
time based at least in part on the generated geo-reference data.
Id. ( disputed limitations emphasized); see App. Br. 2-11.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
pending claims:
Werling et al. ("Werling") US 2011/0043627 Al Feb.24,2011
Schultz et al. ("Schultz") US 2008/0204570 Al Aug. 28, 2008
Pershing US 2010/0110074 Al May 6, 2010
Voeller US 2007/0096012 Al May 3, 2007
Dvir et al. ("Dvir") US 2008/0211908 Al Sep.4,2008
Shiri et al. ("Shiri") US 2008/0183030 Al July 31, 2008
Wogsberg US 2005/0195206 Al Sep. 8,2005
Rofougaran US 2010/0136952 Al June 3, 2010
Murphy US 2005/0083412 Al Apr. 21, 2005
Karczewicz et al. US 2002/0118295 Al Aug.29,2002
("Karczewicz")
Dorfman et al. ("Dorfman") US 2007 /0043504 Al Feb.22,2007
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Werling, Schultz, and Pershing.
3
Appeal2018-004191
Application 13/492,107
Final Act. 3---6. Claims 1, 4--8, 14, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Werling,
Schultz, Voeller, and Pershing. Id. at 6-12. Claims 2, 3, 9, 17, 24, and 25
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Werling, Schultz, Voeller, Pershing, and Dvir. Id. at
12-20. Claims 10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Werling, Schultz,
Pershing, Voeller, and Shiri. Id. at 20-21. Claims 11 and 19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings
of Werling, Schultz, Pershing, Voeller, and Wogsberg. Id. at 21-22.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over
the combined teachings of Werling, Schultz, Voeller, Pershing, and
Rofougaran. Id. at 22-23. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Werling,
Schultz, Voeller, Pershing, and Murphy. Id. at 23. Claim 21 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings
of Werling, Schultz, Voeller, Pershing, and Karczewicz. Id. at 24. Claim 22
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Werling, Schultz, Voeller, Pershing, and Dorfman.
Id. at 24--25. We address these rejections below.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Werling in combination with Schultz teaches
the "capturing" step of claim 15 (Final Act. 3--4) and that Werling alone
teaches the "associating" sub-step of the "performing" step, as well as the
"determining" step, of claim 15 (id. at 3). Further, the Examiner finds that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the
4
Appeal2018-004191
Application 13/492,107
teachings of Werling and Schultz to achieve these steps and sub-steps.
Id. at 4. However, the Examiner finds that neither Werling nor Schultz,
alone or in combination, teaches the "analyzing," "determining," or
"accessing" sub-steps of the "performing" step of claim 15. Id. The
Examiner finds instead that Pershing teaches each of these sub-steps (id. at
4--5) and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
combine the teachings of Pershing with those of Werling and Schultz to
achieve these sub-steps (id. at 5).
Pershing teaches methods and systems "for determining roof
measurement information based on one or more aerial images of a roof of a
building." Pershing ,r 3. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that Pershing's
"one or more aerial images captured by the image acquisition engine 101 are
equivalent to the one or more video frames" recited in the claim 15. Final
Act. 2 (citing Pershing ,r 29); see Pershing, Figs. 4A-F. The Examiner
further finds that Pershing's images are "gathered in addition with location
information by geo-codes provided with the images," and, thus, Pershing
teaches the "analyzing" sub-step of claim 15. Final Act. 2; Ans. 24--25.
The Examiner also finds that Pershing's "modeling engine 102 uses
the gathered image frames as well as using the meta-information provided
along with the aerial images 131 in the process to generate the three-
dimensional model of the roof." Final Act. 2 ( citing Pershing ,r,r 29-31 );
Ans. 25 (citing Pershing ,r,r 29, 30, 117-19); see Pershing ,r 50 (defining
meta-information). According to the Examiner,
Pershing states that as the aerial image corresponds to meta-
information of the aerial image of the roof, like the GPS
coordinates of the camera at the time the image was captured, is
used to assist in the estimation of the roof estimate which
5
Appeal2018-004191
Application 13/492,107
includes factoring in the sites geography and relative location to
other sensitive areas. By using the model of the roof found in the
aerial image and the associated information of the surrounding
area of the building which is being estimated for, geographic
information of the area surrounding the building is similar to the
claimed invention of using the determined boundary with the GIS
data when the model for the roof of the building is being
estimated for with the addition of information with the area
around the building in question taken from the information about
the surrounding areas.
Final Act. 2-3 ( emphasis added). Although limited to only a portion of the
aerial image and, specifically, to the boundaries of the depicted building's
roof (see Pershing, Figs. 4A (image portion 408), 4C (registration markers
410-413)), "the examiner considers the use of meta-information with the
aerial images of the building similar to the claimed use of geo-referencing
data to determine boundaries," as recited in claim 15. Final Act. 2
( emphasis added); see Pershing ,r 63.
The Examiner further explains that:
Since Pershing identifies information about the area around a
building in the aerial/top-down image associated with the
identified with the longitude and latitude coordinate, the known
location of the building in the image and its associated model are
used together with the additional information of the area around
the building in the aerial image are combined to overall to
provide a roof estimate.
Ans. 26 ( discussing the "accessing" sub-step, emphasis added); see App.
Br. 18. Thus, the Examiner finds that Pershing also teaches the "accessing"
sub-step of claim 15.
Appellant disagrees first contending that, unlike the sub-steps recited
in claim 15, Pershing teaches "obtaining one or more aerial images of a
specified building rather than generating geo-referencing data for one or
6
Appeal2018-004191
Application 13/492,107
more video frames." App. Br. 15 (citing Pershing ,r 29). Specifically,
Pershing states that:
Obtaining aerial images of a specified building may include
various forms of geo-coding, performed by the image acquisition
engine 101 and/or the image source 110. In one embodiment,
the image source geo-codes a provided street address into
latitude and longitude coordinates, which are then used to look
up (e.g., query a database) aerial images of the provided street
address.
Pershing ,r 29 ( emphasis added). The Specification explains, however, that:
When an image frame is displayed, geographical bounds of that
image frame may be used to retrieve GIS data in that area. Each
geographic point location may be then translated from
geographic coordinates ( e.g., latitude/longitude, X/Y
coordinates) to image frame coordinates (e.g., pixel row/column)
using mapping information surrounding the image frame.
Spec. ,r 8. Appellant contends that the selection of registration markers for a
building's roof "does not analyze geographic position data and orientation
data and the video frames to generate geo-reference data comprising
geographic locations of pixels of the video frame." Reply Br. 2-3; see
Pershing ,r,r 11 7, 121-23. Thus, "Pershing discloses changing a street
address into latitude and longitude coordinates, not analyzing the pixels of
the video frames to generate geo-referencing data for one or more video
frames as set forth in the independent claims." App. Br. 15 (emphases
added). We agree.
Second, as noted above, claim 15 recites "determining geographical
boundaries of the video frames from the geo-referencing data." App. Br.
Claims App'x. The Examiner finds that Pershing teaches "[d]etermining a
geographical boundaries (' generate model of the roof) [i-f30] of the video
frames from the geo-referencing data; ('of the specified building' performed
7
Appeal2018-004191
Application 13/492,107
using the image the one or more aerial images as image data 105) ['i-f30,
29]." App. Br. 16 (quoting Final Act. 6).
Referring to Figures 10-18, the Specification depicts sequential video
frames 1-9. Spec. ,r 25. "When an image frame is displayed, geographical
bounds of that image frame may be used to retrieve GIS data in that area."
Id. ,r 8. The Specification further explains that
the processor 13 6 may determine GIS data position for a single
video frame and shift positions of a set of frames based on the
single frame. For example, the processor 136 may determine
GIS data position for video frame 1, and shift such positions
according to the offset of video frames 2-9. Then, the processor
136 may determine GIS data position for video frame 10, and
shift such positions according to the offset of video frames 11-
19. The GIS data positions for the remaining video frames 20-
N may be determined in a similar fashion.
Id. ,r 83. We interpret claim limitations in view of their plain language, the
context within which those limitations appear, and the Specification of
which the claims are part. Here, we determine that the recited "geographical
boundaries" refer to the mapped boundaries of the video frame, rather than
those of an object, e.g., a building's roof, captured within that frame. See id.
,r,r 78-79.
As Appellant contends, "generating roof models and roof
measurements of buildings shown in aerial image is not generating
geographical boundaries of video frames. In other words, Pershing generates
information regarding outlines of a structure in an image; not a geographical
boundary of a video frame itself." App. Br. 16 ( emphases added); see Reply
Br. 2-3; Pershing ,r,r 3, 30. Pershing refers to the boundaries of the specified
building's roof, rather than the boundaries of the video frames. Thus, the
8
Appeal2018-004191
Application 13/492,107
Examiner fails to show that Pershing teaches or suggests "determining
geographical boundaries of the video frames from the geo-referencing data."
Third, in view of Appellant's contentions regarding the "analyzing"
and "determining" sub-steps, the Examiner fails to show that Pershing
teaches the "accessing" sub-step. App. Br. 17-19. In particular, because
Pershing does not teach "determining geographical boundaries of the video
frames," Appellant contends that Pershing also does not teach or suggest
"accessing geographic information system (GIS) data using the determined
geographical boundary of the video frames." See id. at 18. We agree.
The Examiner must show that the applied references, as combined,
teach or suggest all of the limitations of the rejected claims. Here, Appellant
is correct that the Examiner has not shown that Pershing teaches or suggests
the "analyzing," "determining," and "accessing" sub-steps, as recited in
independent claim 15. App. Br. 13-19.
These sub-steps are substantially the same as sub-steps recited in each
of independent claims 1, 23, and 24. Despite some differences in the
recitations of the independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 24 describe
obtaining "one or more layers of geographic information system (GIS) data
using the determined geographical boundary of the video frame" and claims
15 and 23 describe accessing "geographic information system (GIS) data
using the determined geographical boundary of the video frames"; the
Examiner also relies on Pershing to teach the similar sub-steps of the other
independent claims. Id. at 7-8 (reading sub-steps of claim 1 on Pershing),
11 (reading sub-steps of claim 23 on Pershing), 16-17 (reading sub-steps of
claim 24 on Pershing). Because the Examiner relies on the same disclosures
of Pershing to teach the similar sub-steps recited in independent claims 1,
9
Appeal2018-004191
Application 13/492,107
23, and 24, we also agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to
show that Pershing teaches or suggests those limitations. Id. at 20 ( claim 1 ),
21 (claim 23), 21-22 (claim 24). Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in the concluding claims 1, 15, 23, and 24 are rendered obvious over
the combined teachings of Werling, Schultz, and Pershing, alone or in
combination with Voeller.
The Examiner also concludes that claims 2-14, 16-22, and 25, which
depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, 15, or 24, are
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Werling, Schultz,
Pershing, and Voeller, alone or in combination with Dvir, Shiri, Wogsberg,
Rofougaran, Murphy, Karczewicz, or Dorfman. Final Act. 9-25. Appellant
contends that, because the Examiner erred in rejecting their base claims,
claims 1, 15, 23, and 24, we cannot sustain the rejections of dependent
claims 2-13, 16-22, and 25, as well as claim 14. See App. Br. 22. We
agree.
Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
25; and we do not sustain the rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-2 5.
REVERSED
10