Ex Parte Saint Clair et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13367184 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/367, 184 02/06/2012
63759 7590 09/27/2018
DUKEW. YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jonathan Martin Saint Clair
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.
11-1317-US-NP 3302
EXAMINER
BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN MARTIN SAINT CLAIR, WILLIAM D. SHERMAN,
MITCHELL D. VOTH, RONALD N. MURATA,
BENTLEY EDWIN NORTHON, JAMES RIDGEWAY GILLIS,
ROBERT P. HIGGINS, DAVID CHRISTIEN SOREIDE,
ROBERT R. KEEVER, and ORDIE DEAN BUTTERFIELD
Appeal2017-001345
Application 13/367,184
Technology Center 3600
Before KEN B. BARRETT, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jonathan Martin Saint Clair et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7,
9-11, 14--19, and 21, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal
Br. 6--17. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-001345
Application 13/367,184
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates generally to detecting objects
and, in particular, to a method and apparatus for detecting moving objects
and stationary objects by a mobile platform." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 16, and
21 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus for detecting an object around a platform,
the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of passive sensor systems configured to
generate first sensor information from light, the plurality of
passive sensor systems together comprising an image sensor
system, wherein the plurality comprises a number sufficient
such that when individual fields of view of all of the plurality of
passive sensor systems are combined, a combined field of view
of the image sensor system covers substantially all of an
environment around the platform;
an active sensor system configured to send signals,
receive responses from the signals, and generate second sensor
information from the responses, wherein the active sensor
system comprises one of a light detection and ranging system
(LIDAR) and a laser detection and ranging system (LADAR),
wherein the active sensor system has a second field of view
more narrow than the combined field of view; and
a processor unit in communication with the image sensor
system and the active sensor system, the processor unit
configured to control the active sensor system to send the
signals in a direction toward the object based on the first sensor
information and to generate information about the object using
the second sensor information.
2
Appeal2017-001345
Application 13/367,184
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Wood
Lau
Schade
US 6,804,607 Bl
US 2007 /0040062 Al
US 7,202,809 Bl
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Oct. 12, 2004
Feb.22,2007
Apr. 10, 2007
I. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 14--19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Wood and Lau. Final
Act. 2-6.
II. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wood, Lau, and Schade. Id. at 6.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I- Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 14-19, and 21 as unpatentable over
Wood and Lau
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Wood
discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of passive sensor systems
(IR sensors) configured to generate first sensor information from light, an
active sensor system (LADAR sensor) configured to send signals, receive
responses from the signals, and generate second sensor information from the
responses, and a processor unit ( on board computer) in communication with
the image sensor system and the active sensor system. See Final Act. 2-3;
Ans. 2-3. The Examiner acknowledges that Wood does not disclose that the
processor unit is configured to control the active sensor to send the signals in
3
Appeal2017-001345
Application 13/367,184
a targeted direction toward an object based on the first sensor information,
but finds that Lau discloses this feature. See Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner
concludes that, given the teachings of the prior art, it would have been
obvious to modify Wood to include an active sensor system that sends
signals in a targeted direction toward the object based on the first sensor
information "because it would allow for better tracking of the object" and
because it would be "merely a substitution of a well-known sensor with no
new or unexpected results." Final Act. 5---6.
Appellants argue that the rejection is defective because "Lau does not
disclose what the Office Action asserts with respect to claim 1." Appeal
Br. 10. The Examiner cites paragraph 70 of Lau as disclosing the relevant
feature of claim 1. Ans. 4. In response, Appellants acknowledge that Lau
discloses "first identifying a projectile track using an infrared sensor and
supplying the resulting track to a LIDAR device." Reply Br. 4. However,
Appellants contend that the disclosure of Lau is insufficient to support the
rejection because, "[i]n Lau, the infrared track is merely supplied to the
LIDAR system, possibly for additional information for designating and
tracking the projectile, without one being 'based on' the other." Reply Br. 4.
Appellants do not persuasively identify any shortcoming in the
Examiner's finding that the LID AR device of Lau sends signals in a
direction toward the object based on the information from the infrared
sensor. Paragraph 70 of Lau teaches that the LID AR device receives the
projectile track solution "for designating and tracking the projectile," and
Figure 11 of Lau shows LID AR device 66 sending a signal in a targeted
direction toward object 14. Appellants acknowledge that the projectile track
solution in Lau is identified using the infrared sensor. Reply Br. 4. Thus,
4
Appeal2017-001345
Application 13/367,184
Appellants do not adequately explain why the disclosed function of Lau's
LIDAR system is not "based on" the information received by the LIDAR
system. Appellants also do not offer factual evidence or persuasive
technical reasoning to support the assertion that Lau's LIDAR device
receives information for designating and tracking merely as "additional
information." Id. at 4--5. Consequently, Appellants' arguments regarding
the disclosure of Lau do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appellants also argue that the rationale provided by the Examiner
constitutes impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 12. Appellants contend that
there is "no basis to assume that the combination would allow for better
tracking of the target," and "[t]he reason the Office Action has no such basis
is because neither Wood nor Lau, nor their combination, disclose[s] the
claim feature described above." Id. These arguments are effectively that the
rationale must be based on improper hindsight because the feature is not
expressly disclosed. However, for the reasons discussed above, Appellants'
arguments do not demonstrate error in the Examiner's finding that the
targeting feature is disclosed by Lau.
Moreover, Appellants do not identify any knowledge relied upon by
the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants' disclosure and that
was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the
invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F. 2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (so
long as a conclusion of obviousness is based on a reconstruction that "takes
into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at
the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge
gleaned only from [Appellants'] disclosure, such a reconstruction is
proper"). Thus, Appellants' assertion of improper hindsight is unsupported.
5
Appeal2017-001345
Application 13/367,184
Appellants further contend that "[ t ]he Office Action has provided no
evidence that there is a mere substitution of components, and thus the
statement is conclusory." Appeal Br. 13. Appellants elaborate that "claim 1
requires more than a mere substitution of sensors," specifically that
"[ c ]laim 1 provides for a linkage between the sensor systems using the
processor." Id. These arguments are effectively that the rationale is
improper because the claim feature is not disclosed in the prior art.
However, as discussed above, Appellants' arguments do not demonstrate
error in the Examiner's finding that Lau discloses LIDAR that designates
and tracks a projectile "based on" information from an infrared sensor via a
processor. Appellants do not offer factual evidence or persuasive technical
reasoning as to why a substitution of the teaching of Lau into the system of
Wood would yield more than predictable results.
In particular, Wood discloses a scanning LADAR or LIDAR device
that measures the range to an object. See, e.g., Wood, col. 3, 11. 59---67,
col. 5, 11. 36-50. Appellants do not explain why this could not be effectively
done by sending the LADAR or LIDAR signals in a more targeted direction
(via the processor, based on the targeting feature from Lau), and do not
provide an explanation as to why having the processor direct the signals
"based on" information from passive IR sensors would achieve more than
the predictable result of efficiently ranging the tracked object. Appellants'
arguments therefore do not explain why the subject matter at issue would be
more than a simple substitution of the targeting functionality described in
Lau in place of the scanning LADAR or LIDAR of Wood.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, Appellants'
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's determination that
6
Appeal2017-001345
Application 13/367,184
the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 3-7, 9, 14, and 15,
for which Appellants rely on the same arguments, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wood and Lau.
Regarding claims 16-19 and 21, Appellants rely on the arguments
presented with respect to claim 1 in traversing the rejection of these claims.
See Appeal Br. 6. For the same reasons that Appellants' arguments do not
apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, these arguments likewise do
not apprise us of error in the rejections of claims 16-19 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), which we likewise sustain.
Rejection II - Claims 10 and 11 as unpatentable over
Wood, Lau, and Schade
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Appellants rely on the arguments
presented with respect to claim 1 in traversing the rejection of these claims.
See Appeal Br. 16. For the same reasons that Appellants' arguments do not
apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, these arguments likewise do
not apprise us of error in the rejections of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), which we likewise sustain.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9,
14--19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wood
and Lau.
7
Appeal2017-001345
Application 13/367,184
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wood, Lau, and
Schade.
No time period for taking any subsequent 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8