Ex Parte SharpDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 201712717003 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/717,003 03/03/2010 Kevin Sharp 89730-008010US-782717 1870 112877 7590 09/25/2017 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Trimble Navigation Limited Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER VO, TUNG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEVIN SHARP Appeal 2017-006361 Application 12/717,00s1 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1, 4, 24, and 26—35. Appellant has canceled claims 2, 3, and 5—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-006361 Application 12/717,003 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellant's disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to systems having a virtual perspective center of a camera aligned with a measurement center of a position measurement system. Spec. 12. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested limitation): 1. An apparatus for acquiring image and location information comprising: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) device configured to measure a position of the apparatus in a real world coordinate frame, the GNSS device including an antenna comprising an element configured to receive signals for determining the position of the apparatus, the element forming a measurement center of the GNSS device; an imaging device coupled to the GNSS device and configured to acquire the image information from light rays entering the imaging device, the imaging device having a perspective center located at a no-parallax point of the imaging device; a lens coupled to the imaging device and configured to receive the light rays; and an optical element coupled to the imaging device in a fixed position and arranged to alter a path of the light rays by reflecting the light rays so that the perspective center of the imaging device is located separate from a virtual perspective center of the imaging device, the virtual perspective center 2 Our decision relies upon Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Sept. 26, 2016); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 16, 2016); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 24, 2016); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 3, 2010). 2 Appeal 2017-006361 Application 12/717,003 being a single point located where the no-parallax point of the imaging device would be located if the light rays were not reflected by the optical element, the perspective center and the virtual perspective center being real points, a location of the perspective center being based on an arrangement of the optical element, and a location of the virtual perspective center being fixed relative to the imaging device, wherein the optical element is arranged so that the perspective center is spaced from the virtual perspective center, and the GNSS device is arranged so that a location of the virtual perspective center of the imaging device is coincident with and overlaps the element of the antenna so that an origin of a coordinate frame of the imaging device overlies the measurement center of the GNSS device. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Shirai et al. ("Shirai") US 2003/0160757 A1 Aug. 28, 2003 Prentice et al. ("Prentice") US 2009/0082991 Al Mar. 26, 2009 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1, 4, and 26—35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Shirai and Prentice.3 Ans. 2. ISSUE Appellant argues (App. Br. 7—12) the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, and 26—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Shirai and Prentice is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: 3 Claim 24 was canceled as of March 16, 2016, and is not before us on Appeal. 3 Appeal 2017-006361 Application 12/717,003 Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests "[a]n apparatus for acquiring image and location information" that includes, inter alia, "[a] global navigation satellite system (GNSS) device" that is "arranged so that a location of the virtual perspective center of the imaging device is coincident with and overlaps the element of the antenna so that an origin of a coordinate frame of the imaging device overlies the measurement center of the GNSS device," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We agree with particular arguments advanced by Appellant with respect to claims 1, 4, and 26—35 for the specific reasons discussed below. We highlight and address specific findings and conclusions regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. Appellant contends "it is impossible to determine the location of a no parallax point, and hence the location of a virtual perspective center, based on the simplified diagrams in Prentice." App. Br. 9, referring to Prentice, Fig. 3. Appellant specifically contends: Without being able to identify the location of the no-parallax point, it is impossible to say that Prentice teaches that "the GNSS device is arranged so that a location of the virtual perspective center ... is coincident with and overlaps the element of the antenna." Id. The Examiner finds Prentice's imaging device, depicted in Figure 3, teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 11—12, citing Prentice 178, Fig 3. However, contrary to the Examiner's findings, we find Figure 3 and paragraph 78 of Prentice are silent as to an arrangement where "a location of the virtual perspective center of the imaging device is coincident with and 4 Appeal 2017-006361 Application 12/717,003 overlaps the element of the antenna so that an origin of a coordinate frame of the imaging device overlies the measurement center of the GNSS device " and merely teach a GPS receiver without a showing of an overlap with the virtual perspective center. Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the contested limitation of claim 1, such that we find error in the Examiner's resulting conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant as discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. In light of our reversal of the rejection of independent claim 1, supra, we also reverse the obviousness rejection of independent claims 26 and 27, which recite the contested limitation in commensurate form. For the same reasons, we also reverse the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4 and 28—35 that variously depend from independent claims 1 and 27. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4, and 26—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination of record, and we do not sustain the rejection. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, and 26—35. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation