Omer, Thomas et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2020

2019004401 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020)

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 12/01/2020
NIXON PEABODY, LLP
799 Ninth Street, NW
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
EXAMINER
JOISIL, BERTEAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2020 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):
ipairlink@nixonpeabody.com
nppatent@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 2019-0044011
Application 13/220,535
Technology Center 2400
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant2 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 and 3–10. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of an earlier version of the pending
claims in September 2017. Ex parte Omer et al., Appeal No. 2017-005642
(PTAB September 25, 2017).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AEROVIRONMENT, INC.
Appeal Brief 3, filed November 21, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2019-004401
Application 13/220,535

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “camera-equipped aircraft, for
example unmanned aerial vehicles used for surveillance.” Specification ¶ 1,
filed August 29, 2011 (Spec.). 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:
a de-mosaicing module,
a video conditioning module configured to modify at least
one of color correction, white balance, saturation, and contrast,
an individual frame display information module
configured to provide information on at least one of rotating,
scaling and offset, and
a template matching module for at least one of
stabilization, tracking, and video compression.
Appeal Br. 14 (formatting modified).
Appeal 2019-004401
Application 13/220,535

3
REJECTION
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References 
1, 3–10 103(a) Liu,3 Cunningham,4Nadir,5
Suzuki6
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and Appellant’s
arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner reasoning,
findings, and conclusions on pages 2–10 of the Final Office Action mailed
August 16, 2018 (Final Act.) and pages 8–19 of the Examiner’s Answer
mailed March 29, 2019 (Ans.). We address Appellant’s arguments in turn.
Claim 1 recites “a central video image processor disposed in the
fuselage exteriorly of the gimbal-mounted turret.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant
argues that Nadir does not teach or suggest a processor located in an
aircraft’s fuselage. See Appeal Br. 8–10. Appellant contends that the
Examiner found that Nadir “allude[s] to a processor located in the fuselage
of [an] aircraft,” but according to Appellant, Nadir “does not specifically
teach [that] the bulk of the video image processing is performed by circuitry
in the turret payload.” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues
that the other cited references also fail to teach a processor located in the
fuselage of an aircraft. See Appeal Br. 10–11.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner found
that Nadir teaches a processor located in an aircraft’s fuselage because Nadir

3 Liu (US 2012/0320203 A1; December 20, 2012).
4 Cunningham et al. (US 2007/0031151 A1; February 8, 2007).
5 Nadir et al. (US 2012/0200703 A1; August 9, 2012).
6 Suzuki et al. (US 2002/0145678 A1; October 10, 2002).
Appeal 2019-004401
Application 13/220,535

4
discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle that includes an imaging system in the
“payload compartment” of the vehicle. See Final Act. 6. The record before
us adequately supports this finding. Neither the claims nor the written
description explicitly define the term “fuselage,” but one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood the term to encompass the central body of an
aircraft (including the nose of the aircraft) that carries people or cargo.7
Nadir discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle that includes an imaging system
in the vehicle’s payload compartment, which is located in the nose of the
vehicle. See Nadir ¶¶ 16, 131, 152, Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B. Nadir discloses
that the imaging system includes cameras operated by control boards, Nadir
¶ 132, the controls boards “control[ing] [the] cameras, in terms such as
pictures acquisition and timing control, pictures manipulation, storage and
optional communication,” Nadir ¶ 135 (emphasis added) (reference number
omitted). Nadir explains that “pictures manipulation comprise operations
such as stitching of pictures into a larger image and/or different image,
panning and zooming or tilting in the image, correction of angular
distortions, video streaming or other image processing or enhancements such
as sharpening or deblurring.” Nadir ¶ 136; see also Nadir ¶¶ 11–14, 137
(discussing image processing and the imaging system). We thus disagree

7 See, e.g., Fuselage, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.
merriamwebster.com/dictionary/fuselage (last updated November 4, 2020)
(defining “fuselage” as “the central body portion of an aircraft designed to
accommodate the crew and the passengers or cargo”); Long-Range Jet,
Merriam-Webster Visual Dictionary Online, http://www.
visualdictionaryonline.com/transport-machinery/air-transport/long-range-
jet.php (last visited November 4, 2020) (defining the nose of a long-range jet
as the “[l]eading tip of the fuselage”).
Appeal 2019-004401
Application 13/220,535

5
with Appellant that Nadir does not teach or suggest a processor located in an
aircraft’s fuselage.
As for the argument that Nadir does not specifically teach that the
bulk of the video image processing is performed by circuitry in the turret
payload, claim 1 does not expressly recite this language. Instead, claim 1
recites “a central video image processor” that is “disposed in the fuselage
exteriorly of the gimbal-mounted turret” and “configured to receive and
process image data from the camera.” Appeal Br. 14. Claim 1 also recites
that the central video image processor includes certain modules. Appeal
Br. 14. The Examiner concluded that the recited central video image
processor would have been obvious given the combined teachings of Nadir,
Liu, Suzuki, and Cunningham. See, e.g., Final Act. 5–7. Appellant’s
arguments against Nadir alone have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in this respect. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
The Examiner found that Liu also teaches a processor located in an
aircraft’s fuselage. See Final Act. 6. The Examiner found that Liu discloses
an unmanned aerial vehicle that includes an autopilot controller and
associated memory card in the fuselage of the vehicle, a camera mounted on
the exterior of the vehicle, and a computer device located outside the
vehicle. See Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner found that Liu’s autopilot
controller receives and processes images captured by the camera. See Final
Act. 6.
Liu provides adequate support for these findings. Although Appellant
asserts that “[n]othing in Liu references the position of the processor,”
Appeal 2019-004401
Application 13/220,535

6
Appeal Br. 11, Liu depicts an unmanned aerial vehicle with an autopilot
controller and memory card installed within the central body of the vehicle
and a digital camera mounted on the outside of the vehicle. See Liu Fig. 1;
see also Liu ¶ 18 (describing the unmanned aerial vehicle shown in Figure
1). Liu explains that the unmanned aerial vehicle has “an autopilot controller
installed in the unmanned aerial vehicle” and “a digital camera mounted on
[the] unmanned aerial vehicle.” Liu ¶ 11 (emphases added). As to the
processing performed by autopilot controller, Liu explains that the controller
“trigger[s] the digital camera plural times to take plural photos” and that
“[t]he plural photos taken during this fight mission would have been stored
in the memory card.” Liu ¶ 24 (reference numbers omitted). Liu also
discloses that the autopilot controller processes the photos by correcting
“[t]he lens distortion [that] comes with each photo . . . to generate the
calibrated-photo, which is then stored in the memory card.” Liu ¶ 27. We
thus disagree with Appellant that Liu does not teach a processor located in
the fuselage of an aircraft.
Appellant next contends that the Examiner’s proposed modification
would make “Liu unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 12.
According to Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art reading Liu would
have “understood that Liu teaches [that] the digital camera, the autopilot
controller, and the computer device are stored in the same location within
the UAV, or the computer device itself can be located remote from the
UAV.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that “modifying the UAV disclosed
by Liu to have the alleged configuration of Nadir would render Liu
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appeal 2019-004401
Application 13/220,535

7
We find this argument unpersuasive. First, we disagree that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Liu’s digital camera,
autopilot controller, and computer device reside in the same location in the
unmanned aerial vehicle. As discussed above, Liu discloses the unmanned
aerial vehicle that has “a digital camera mounted on [the] unmanned aerial
vehicle” and “an autopilot controller installed in the unmanned aerial
vehicle.” Liu ¶ 11 (emphases added). Liu’s illustration of the unmanned
vehicle tracks this description: Liu depicts the digital camera attached to the
outside of the vehicle and the autopilot controller in the vehicle’s fuselage.
See Liu Fig. 1. Indeed, in the prior appeal, Appellant explicitly noted that
“Liu discloses a camera 111 protruding from an aircraft 11.” Reply Brief at
1, Ex parte Omer et al., Appeal No. 2017-005642 (PTAB September 25,
2017).
Second, the relevant processor in the Examiner’s rejection is Liu’s
autopilot controller, not Liu’s computer device. See Final Act. 6. Regardless,
that Liu teaches a computer device located outside the unmanned aerial
vehicle does not mean that this location of the computer device is the
“intended purpose” of Liu’s disclosed invention. Liu teaches that the “object
of the present invention” is solving problems such as providing “a fast and
reliable approach to geo-referencing” photos and addressing the “significant
gap in recording the accurate position and attitude data during [a] flight
mission.” Liu ¶¶ 9, 5, 6. Appellant has not adequately explained how the
Examiner’s proposed modifications render Liu unsuitable for these purposes.
We thus see no merit to this argument.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner relied on impermissible
hindsight to combine the teachings of Nadir, Suzuki, Liu, and Cunningham
Appeal 2019-004401
Application 13/220,535

8
in the claimed manner. Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant contends that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand Liu’s Figure 1 to teach that a
computer device “is located remote from the” unmanned aerial vehicle, not
that “the computer device located within the aircraft itself, as part of the
aircraft or fuselage payload.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also asserts that
“nothing in the reference themselves suggests a motivation for” the
Examiner’s modification. Appeal Br. 13.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. Again, the relevant processor
in Liu is the autopilot controller, not the computer device, and Liu teaches
that the controller resides in the fuselage of the unmanned aerial vehicle, see,
e.g., Liu ¶¶ 11, 24, 27, Fig. 1. And even if Liu did not explicitly teach
placing a computer device in an aircraft’s fuselage, as discussed above, the
Examiner correctly found that Nadir teaches placing a computer device in
the fuselage of an aircraft. See Nadir ¶¶ 11–14, 16, 131–38, 152, Figs. 1A,
1B, 2A, 2B. Finally, even if Liu and Nadir did not teach this subject matter,
the Examiner found that the claimed arrangement of components was a
“commonplace” feature of prior art aircrafts:
Examiner acknowledges the advantages described by Appellant
in relation to the particular feature of the centralized video image
processing module of the UAV of the instant application.
Nonetheless, such feature is however commonplace in a lot of
existing applications in the same field of endeavor. The various
visual displays of aircraft flight decks . . . which integrate image
processor and graphic processor into controllers, operably
coupled to cameras for processing images from cameras and
which are part of electronics contained in the cockpit areas and
not located in a turret attached to the aircraft . . . are obvious
examples.
Ans. 13. Appellant has not persuasively addressed this finding. The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to incorporate this
Appeal 2019-004401
Application 13/220,535

9
commonplace feature into the teachings of the cited art to arrive at the
claimed invention. See Ans. 13; see also Final Act. 4–7. We see no error in
this conclusion, as it simply recognizes that “if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Although
the cited art may not explicitly provide this motivation, the Examiner was
not required to find an explicit motivation in the references for the proposed
combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417–19.
Appellant next argues that Liu does not teach “a gimbal-mounted
turret having one or more degrees of freedom relative to the fuselage” or “a
camera disposed in the gimbal-mounted turret for motion therewith in the
one or more degrees of freedom.” See Reply Brief 2, filed May 16, 2019
(Reply Br.). Appellant has forfeited these arguments by raising them for the
first time in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv), 41.41(b)(2).
Even if Appellant had timely raised these arguments, we would have found
them unpersuasive. The Examiner concluded that these limitations would
have been obvious given the combined teachings of Liu and Cunningham.
See Final Act. 5. Appellant’s arguments against Liu alone thus would not
have persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.8

8 We note that while Liu may not explicitly disclose mounting a camera in a
turret, Liu uses a dome to represent the camera. See Liu Fig. 1, item 111.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this dome to teach
that the camera resides in a turret. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 10 (describing Figure 1
as “a bottom view of a conventional manned aircraft having a gimbaled ball
turret in which a camera is mounted”), Fig. 1 (using a dome-like object to
represent a prior art gimbaled ball turret in which a camera is mounted);
Cunningham ¶ 19 (explaining that “in the case of an aircraft, any apertures,
Appeal 2019-004401
Application 13/220,535

10
Appellant also accuses the Examiner of “minimizing the claimed
features and not affording the proper patentable weight to each limitation.”
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). Although not entirely clear, Appellant
seems to assert that the Examiner failed to address that the “central video
image processor” must be “disposed in the fuselage exteriorly of the gimbal-
mounted turret.” Reply Br. 3. But as discussed earlier, the Examiner
concluded that the recited central video image processor would have been
obvious given the combined teachings of Nadir, Liu, Suzuki, and
Cunningham. See, e.g., Final Act. 5–7. In any event, the Examiner explained
that this arrangement of components “is . . . commonplace in a lot of
existing applications in the same field of endeavor” and provided examples
such as “[t]he various visual displays of aircraft flight decks” that “integrate
image processor and graphic processor into controllers, operably coupled to
cameras for processing images from cameras and which are part of
electronics contained in the cockpit areas and not located in a turret attached
to the aircraft cameras.” Ans. 13. Appellant has not adequately addressed
this finding.
For at least the above reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erroneously rejected claim 1 under § 103(a). We thus sustain this
rejection. Because Appellant has not presented separate, persuasive
patentability arguments form claims 3–10, we also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims.

telescope, mirrors, antenna, etc., required for transmitting and receiving
beams, along with supporting optical components, can be contained in a
gimbal-driven turret having a dome-like enclosure that protrudes from an
exterior surface of the aircraft”).
Appeal 2019-004401
Application 13/220,535

11
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–10 103(a) Liu, Cunningham, Nadir, Suzuki 1, 3–10

No period for taking any action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED