The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2021

2020005003 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2021)

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.
14/540,408 11/13/2014 Keith Daniel Humfeld 14-1606-US-
NP (24691-792)
1082
60476 7590 09/27/2021
PATENT DOCKET DEPARTMENT
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
LEE, Y YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2419
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2021 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):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEITH DANIEL HUMFELD
____________

Appeal 2020-005003
Application 14/540,408
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Action rejecting claims 1 and 11, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005003
Application 14/540,408

2
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates “generally to airborne sensors, and more
particularly, to a deployable airborne sensor array system and method of
use.” Spec. ¶ 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to a system; and
independent claim 11 is directed to a method of commensurate scope for
purposes of this appeal. Appeal Br. 13–15.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A deployable airborne sensor array system comprising:
a first tether configured to be coupled to a common
position on an aircraft and deployed from the aircraft;
a first airborne vehicle coupled to the first tether;
a second tether, a third tether, a fourth tether, and a fifth
tether, comprising respective first ends, coupled to a rear
portion of the first airborne vehicle such that connection of the
second tether, the third tether, the fourth tether, and the fifth
tether originate from the common position on the aircraft, and
respective second ends;
a plurality of airborne vehicles including a second
airborne vehicle, a third airborne vehicle, a fourth airborne
vehicle, and a fifth airborne vehicle coupled to the respective
second ends of the second, third, fourth, and fifth tethers,
respectively, wherein each of the plurality of airborne vehicles
includes different biased lift characteristics relative to one
another and, wherein, the second and the third airborne vehicles
include respective unbalanced wings to cause the second and
the third airborne vehicles to respectively glide to the left and to
the right of the aircraft, and the fourth and the fifth airborne
vehicles include positive and negative lift profiles, respectively,
to cause the fourth and the fifth airborne vehicles to
respectively glide above and below the aircraft;
Appeal 2020-005003
Application 14/540,408

3
wherein each of the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth
airborne vehicles comprise a respective imaging camera
configured to capture a plurality of images of a target and
generate image data associated with the target, wherein the first,
second, third, fourth, and fifth airborne vehicles establish a
three-dimensional (3D) array of sensors operating coherently to
capture a 3D view of the target at an instant in time; and
a computing device configured to:
aim the respective imaging cameras at the target;
instruct the respective imaging cameras to capture
a two-dimensional (2D) image of the target at varying
times;
interleave captured 2D images based on a time at
which each 2D image was captured to combine the image
data received from the respective imaging camera of each
of the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth airborne
vehicles; and
generate a high-speed video of the target based on
the combined image data.
Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claims App.).

REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Lloyd (Lloyd et al., US 2002/0145554 A1; published Oct. 10, 2002,
hereinafter “Lloyd”) and Ulich (US 5,231,480; issued July 27, 1993). Final
Act. 2.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites:
aim the respective imaging cameras at the target;
Appeal 2020-005003
Application 14/540,408

4
instruct the respective imaging cameras to capture a two-
dimensional (2D) image of the target at varying times;
interleave captured 2D images based on a time at which each
2D image was captured to combine the image data received
from the respective imaging camera of each of the . . . airborne
vehicles;
and generate a high-speed video of the target based on the
combined image data.
The Examiner finds that Ulich teaches “well-known imaging cameras
. . . to capture a plurality of images of a target,” and that Ulich’s “airborne
imaging” teaches capturing 2D images of the target at varying times. Final
Act. 4 (citing Ulich Figs. 2, 3, 6, and 11). Specifically, the Examiner finds
that “Ulich explicitly teaches the . . . employment of plural cameras to
capture images at varying times.” Ans. 3 (citing Ulich 7:64, 5:26).
According to the Examiner, Ulich teaches “processing a plurality of images
from multiple cameras” and “meets the definition of interleaving in its
broadest reasonable sense, consistent with appellant’s disclosure.” Id. at 4
(citing Spec. ¶ 37). We disagree with the Examiner’s reading of the
interleaving limitation onto Ulrich’s system.
The claimed invention requires a plurality of cameras capturing 2D
images of the target at varying times and then interleaving those images
from the plurality of cameras to generate a high-speed video based on the
combined image data. Appellant’s Specification details the steps “for
generating a high-speed video of a target” including aiming “the plurality of
sensor devices 114 at the target . . . to capture a two-dimensional (2D) image
of the target at varying times,” and the sensor devices “transmit[] the 2D
images to computing device 200 as sensor data,” and the images are
interleaved “based on the time in which each 2D image was captured to
Appeal 2020-005003
Application 14/540,408

5
generate a high-speed video of the target.” Spec. ¶ 37. The claims, in light
of Appellant’s Specification, requires interleaving the 2D images captured
by the plurality of cameras to generate a high-speed video of the target.
Here, we agree with Appellant that Ulich does not teach “processing a
plurality of images from multiple cameras,” or subsequently “‘mixing data’
from a plurality of images from multiple cameras.” Reply Br. 4.
Specifically, Appellant argues that “Ulich describes only a single towable
vehicle . . . that may include the gated camera receiver,” but not “aim[ing]
multiple imaging cameras at a target” or “instruct[ing] multiple cameras to
capture images at varying times, nor to interleave the captured images.”
Appeal Br. 8. We also agree with Appellant that, “[e]ven if Ulich were to
disclose ‘merely mixing data’ from multiple images . . . that teaching still
would fall short of interleaving based on a time of capture.” Reply Br. 5.
Ulich discloses “a lidar system 151 having gated camera receiver 152”
and “pulsed laser projector 154 . . . which is housed in a discrete vehicle 156
pulled along by platform 150 using a suitable cable 158.” Ulich 7:15–21.
Ulich also discloses that the “ICCD camera gate is timed to observe the
volume 66 which is below the object 68 to be observed,” and the object will
“appear[] on the video screen 70 as a dark spot 72 which is highlighted by
the surrounding backscatter originating from that part of 66 not obscured by
the target above it.” Id. at 5:25–34. We find that Ulich teaches a single
camera sensor which captures an obscured volume, but does not teach a
plurality of cameras that capture 2D images that are interleaved to generate
a high-speed video of the target. Ulich mentions that “any desired imaging
lidar system may be employed including systems incorporating multiple
lasers, multiple cameras, etc.” Id. at 7:62–64. This adds that Ulich can
Appeal 2020-005003
Application 14/540,408

6
include multiple cameras, but does not explain that they would be used to
capture 2D images that are interleaved to generate a high-speed video of the
target. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Ulich teaches the
argued limitation.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant regarding claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s
other arguments.
Accordingly, as constrained by the record, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. See
Appeal Br. 11–12.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 11 103 Lloyd, Ulich 1, 11

REVERSED