14049364 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2018)

Ex Parte Steward

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 26, 2018

14049364 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/049,364 10/09/2013 27530 7590 10/30/2018 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP IP Department One Wells Fargo Center 301 South College Street, 23rd Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Lucas Dale Steward 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. 48379/09071 1079 EXAMINER LHYMN, SARAH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2018 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): ip@nelsonmullins.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUCAS DALE STEW ARD Appeal 2018-003 7 59 Application 14/049,364 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19. Claims 4, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Navico Holding AS. App. Br. 1. Appeal2018-003759 Application 14/049,364 Exemplary Claim Appellant's disclosed invention relates to determining and displaying depths of locations ahead of a vessel based on marine sonar data. See, generally, Spec. ,r,r 24--28. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to: receive distance interval information pertaining to two or more locations ahead of a vessel in a direction of travel of the vessel, wherein the distance interval information is a defined distance that is indicative of the distance between the two or more locations ahead of the vessel in which a user desires to know the depth, wherein the distance interval information is received based on one of user input indicating the distance interval information or pre-set distance interval information stored in memory; receive, from a forward looking sonar device, marine sonar data at a current location of the vessel, wherein the forward looking sonar device is disposed underneath the vessel and configured to acquire the marine sonar data ahead of the vessel in the direction of travel of the vessel, wherein the marine sonar data is representative of a volume of an underwater environment ahead of the vessel in the direction of travel of the vessel; determine, based on the received distance interval information, two or more locations ahead of the current location of the vessel, wherein the two or more locations are within the representative volume of the underwater environment; analyze the marine sonar data received at the current location to determine a depth at each of the determined two or more locations ahead of the vessel in the direction of travel of the vessel; and 2 Appeal2018-003759 Application 14/049,364 display, on a chart or map on a screen of a marine electronics device of the vessel, a heading line that includes each determined depth, wherein the heading line extends from the current location and ahead of a representation of the vessel in the direction of travel, wherein each determined depth is displayed at each corresponding location of the determined two or more locations along the heading line. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description rejection. 2 Claims 1, 5, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (US 2005/0099887 Al; May 12, 2005), Inouchi (US 2008/0080317 Al; Apr. 3, 2008), and Barker (US 4,939,661; July 3, 1990). Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, Inouchi, Barker, and Thompson (US 7,542,376 Bl; June 2, 2009). Claims 3, 7, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, Inouchi, Barker, and SIMRAD: NSS Operator Manual (2011) ("SIMRAD"). Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, Inouchi, Barker, and Coleman (US 2011/0013484 Al; Jan. 20, 2011). 3 2 The Examiner has withdrawn theÂ§ 112(a) rejection of claims 3, 7, 12, and 19. Ans. 2. 3 Although the Examiner's statement of the rejection over Zimmerman, Inouchi, Barker, and Coleman refers to claims 6, 7, 18, and 19, the rejection only addresses the merits of claims 6 and 18. Final Act. 24. 3 Appeal2018-003759 Application 14/049,364 Claims 8 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Inouchi, Zimmerman, Barker, Riordan (US 2010/0157736 Al; June 24, 2010), and Kelmenson (US 6,185,505 Bl; Feb. 6, 2001). Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Inouchi, Zimmerman, Barker, Riordan, Kelmenson, and Thompson. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Inouchi, Zimmerman, Barker, Riordan, Kelmenson, and SIMRAD. ANALYSIS The Written Description Rejection The Examiner finds the limitation "wherein the distance interval information is received based on ... pre-set distance interval information stored in memory," as recited in claims 1 and 15, is not supported by the Specification. Final Act. 2. Appellant contends paragraph 24 of the Specification provides support for the "pre-set" limitation by stating that "the computer 600 may be loaded with a set of instructions (software) to perform method 200." App. Br. 7; Spec. ,r 24. Moreover, Appellant asserts "loading a pre-set or manufacturer value in memory to enable performing a method is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art." Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. The disclosure Appellant relies upon in the Specification states only that the software for performing the method 200 is loaded into computer 600. See Spec. ,r 24. The fact that software is loaded into a computer does not in itself show how the software obtains variable values necessary for performing a particular method, for example, from a user-entered value or 4 Appeal2018-003759 Application 14/049,364 from a pre-set value stored in memory. There is no mention in paragraph 24, or elsewhere in the Specification, of a pre-set distance interval stored in memory. Appellant's argument that storing a pre-set value in memory would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the art is unavailing. The test for complying with the written description requirement is not whether a feature would have been well known or obvious. Rather, the test is whether Appellant's disclosure "reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, absent any indication in the Specification that a distance interval may be pre-set in memory, we agree with the Examiner and find Appellant's disclosure does not convey that Appellant was in possession of the pre-set distance interval feature at the time the application was filed. We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 15 for failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Obviousness Rejections Claims 1-3, 5-7, 15, and 17-19 Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, Appellant contends the combination of Zimmerman, Inouchi, and Barker fails to disclose determining depths at two locations ahead of a vessel from sonar data received at a current location. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3. Appellant also contends the Examiner's combination fails to disclose displaying a heading 5 Appeal2018-003759 Application 14/049,364 line with depths at two locations ahead of a vessel. App. Br. 9--1 O; Reply Br. 3--4. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Zimmerman describes a forward looking sonar system with a transducer that projects a signal into the water ahead of a vessel and a phased array of receiving sensors that provides signals to a computer for processing into a 3D image. Zimmerman, ,r 20. In the preferred embodiment, "a large field-of-view is built with a single ping. The transmit beam 131 is used to ensonify a large volume of water." Zimmerman, ,r 42. Zimmerman describes that, as part of the preferred embodiment, sea floor detection may be optionally processed. If bottom detection is enabled 213, bottom points are identified within the beamformed data after filtering 214. In the preferred embodiment, the bottom is initially found in the beamformed data by searching for the largest absolute signal strength return at any given depth for every range and bearing combination. Zimmerman, ,r 59. Thus, Zimmerman describes using results from a single ping-i.e., a round of transmitting a signal and receiving return signals-to construct a rendition of the sea floor ahead of a vessel that includes depths for points at every range and bearing combination (see Zimmerman, ,r,r 20, 42, 59), which we find teaches determining depths at two locations ahead of a vessel from sonar data received at a current location. We further find the collective teachings of the references disclose displaying a heading line with depths at two locations ahead of a vessel. Zimmerman describes that, after obtaining 3D depth data from processing received signals, it is possible to draw the bottom profile of a 2D slice through the 3D data, as shown in Figure 11. Zimmerman, ,r 72; Fig. 11. Barker discloses a marine navigation plotter with electronic charting that "plots a stored coastline chart at a relatively high speed overlaid with various 6 Appeal2018-003759 Application 14/049,364 items of user defined navigational information." Barker, col. 7, 11. 62-66. For example, input ports to Barker's system can be connected to output ports of "various vessel mounted multi-function sensors to obtain data regarding . . . depth soundings and vessel heading." Barker, col. 8, 11. 45--49. The information gathered by these sensors "can be selected, by a user, for purposes of display and comparison." Barker, col. 8, 11. 53-54. Inouchi describes a fishfinder that uses ultrasound pulses to determine the depth and length of fish under a ship. Inouchi, Abstract. The fishfinder can display a boundary line of the sea bottom along with fish determined by the ultrasound pulses. Inouchi, ,r 44. Inouchi's display includes a display bar divided into portions that display the "counted number of single fishes, an average fish length, the maximum fish length and the depth of a single fish having the maximum fish length so that an operator can grasp the information easily." Id. "With horizontal intervals specified by an operator, the intervals are set as time intervals of every ten seconds, or as distance intervals of every 100 m while the ship is advancing." Id. In considering the teachings of Zimmerman, Barker, and Inouchi noted above, we conclude one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized all the pieces of the disputed claim feature of displaying a heading line with depths at two locations ahead of a vessel, and would have been able "to fit the teachings of [ the references] together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). That is, the references collectively disclose determining depth information along a 2D slice of 3D depth data (Zimmerman), displaying depth information and vessel heading (Barker), and indicating underwater information on the display at particular user-specified intervals (Inouchi). It would have been obvious to arrange the pieces of this collective disclosure by taking a 2D 7 Appeal2018-003759 Application 14/049,364 slice of 3D depth data in line with a vessel heading, and displaying that depth data at user-specified intervals along a heading line. The references themselves suggest such an arrangement. To wit, Zimmerman provides that "[ m Jany accidents could have been avoided if the mariners were equipped with a 3 dimensional, forward- looking, bottom mapping and obstacle detection sonar." Zimmerman, ,r 4. In other words, it would be important to display to a mariner the depths ahead of a vessel in the direction the vessel was heading. And, Inouchi provides that by dividing a display bar into portions, "an operator's recognition is raised so that he can instantly grasp the relevant data and can visibly recognize underwater conditions." Inouchi, ,r 44. In other words, displaying underwater information at intervals makes the information easier to grasp in an otherwise cluttered display. We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 17-19 not specifically argued separately. Claims 8, 11, 12, and 14 The Examiner finds Kelmenson teaches the independent claim 8 limitations determine the difference between the first depth and the second depth; select the first depth of the first location or the second depth of the second location as corresponding to the second location based on the difference by: selecting the second depth ... in an instance in which the difference is determined to exceed a threshold difference amount; or selecting the first 8 Appeal2018-003759 Application 14/049,364 depth ... in an instance in which the difference is determined to be within the threshold difference amount. Final Act. 28-29. Appellant contends Kelmenson fails to teach these limitations. App. Br. 13-14. We agree with Appellant. Kelmenson describes acquiring depth data as a ship crosses an area, where "[p Joints at which the depth data is taken must have sufficient spacing to be independent. Data taken over areas less than the predetermined distance apart are not independent." Kelmenson, col. 3, 11. 22-26. Kelmenson fails to teach the disputed claim 8 feature because Kelmenson relates to the spatial difference between locations at which depths are measured, while claim 8 relates to the difference of depth values corresponding to different locations. In other words, Kelmenson teaches a difference between locations, claim 8 recites a difference between depths. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 8, and dependent claims 11, 12, and 14 for the same reason. CONCLUSIONS Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 15. Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 11, 12, and 14, but did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, 15, and 17-19. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-7, 15, and 17-19, and we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 8, 11, 12, and 14. 9 Appeal2018-003759 Application 14/049,364 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10