General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2022

2020004355 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2022)

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. 15/061,129 03/04/2016 Bradford Wayne Miller WABP11335USORG1 446US 1084 91959 7590 03/14/2022 The Small Patent Law Group, LLC 1423 Strassner Dr. Suite 100 Brentwood, MO 63144 EXAMINER NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2022 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): Docket@splglaw.com GBL_IP_Patent_Comm@wabtec.com john.kramer@wabtec.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRADFORD WAYNE MILLER, JAMES D. BROOKS, and NEERAJA SUBRAHMANIYAN Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21 and 24-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as GE Global Sourcing LLC. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “obtaining and communicating image and/or video data using one or more off-board devices, such as wayside devices and/or aerial devices” used for determining “the health or condition of a route over which a vehicle is moving and/or the location of vehicles along the route in the transportation network.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 14, and 19, reproduced below, illustrate the claimed subject matter: 1. A system comprising: a camera configured to be disposed on an off-board device remotely located from a nonaerial vehicle as the non- aerial vehicle moves along a route, the camera configured to generate image data representative of an upcoming segment of the route relative to a direction of travel of the non-aerial vehicle; a communication device configured to be disposed on the off-board device and to wirelessly communicate the image data to the non-aerial vehicle during movement of the non-aerial vehicle along the route; a display screen system disposed onboard the non-aerial vehicle for displaying a live feed of the upcoming segment of the route based on the image data in advance of arrival of the non-aerial vehicle to that segment of the route; and one or more processors configured to automatically control flight of the off-board device alongside the non-aerial vehicle, the camera configured to generate the image data of the upcoming segment of the route and of one or more traction motors or brakes of the non-aerial vehicle as the off-board device flies along one or more lateral sides of the non-aerial vehicle. Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 3 14. A method comprising: generating image data from a camera disposed on an off- board device remotely located from a non-aerial vehicle as the non-aerial vehicle moves along a route, the image data being representative of an upcoming segment of the route relative to a direction of travel of the non-aerial vehicle; communicating the image data from the off-board device to the non-aerial vehicle; examining, using one or more processors, the image data to identify a hazard disposed on the upcoming segment of the route, the image data examined by comparing the image data to a benchmark profile of the route to detect the hazard by mapping the benchmark profile onto the image data and identifying differences between the image data and the benchmark profile, the benchmark profile determined by identifying a line between two or more pixels in the image data having common intensities; and displaying a live feed of the upcoming segment of the route based on the image data on a display screen system disposed onboard the non-aerial vehicle in advance of arrival of the non-aerial vehicle to that segment of the route. 19. A system comprising: a camera configured to be disposed on an aerial device configured to fly above a route remote from a non-aerial vehicle as the non-aerial vehicle moves along the route, the aerial device controlled to fly along a path of the route within a movement envelope bounded by a height of the non-aerial vehicle and a width of the non-aerial vehicle, the camera configured to generate image data representative of an upcoming segment of the route relative to a direction of travel of the non-aerial vehicle; a communication device on the aerial device configured to wirelessly communicate the image data to the non-aerial vehicle; one or more processors disposed on the aerial device that are configured to examine the segment of the route based on the Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 4 image data to identify a hazard disposed in the segment of the route; and a display screen system disposed onboard the non-aerial vehicle for displaying a live feed of the upcoming segment of the route based on the image data in advance of arrival of the non-aerial vehicle to that segment of the route. Appeal Br. 20, 23-25 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Jamieson US 2004/0056182 A1 Mar. 25, 2004 Sawadisavi Development of Machine-vision Technology for Inspection of Railroad Track, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2010 Lefebure US 2011/0288696 A1 Nov. 24, 2011 Mian US 2013/0083188 A1 Apr. 4, 2013 Cooper US 2014/0125356 A1 May 8, 2014 Wagreich ’770 US 2014/0327770 A1 Nov. 6, 2014 Venkatraman US 2015/0009331 A1 Jan. 8, 2015 Duncan US 2015/0102154 A1 Apr. 16, 2015 Heath (“Nick”) The long-range drone that can keep up with a car and fly for an hour, TechRepublic May 27, 2015 Wang US 2015/0353206 A1 Dec. 10, 2015 Bookless US 2016/0068268 A1 Mar. 10, 2016 Wagreich ’760 US 9,533,760 B1 Jan. 3, 2017 Pahwa US 2018/0075747 A1 Mar. 15, 2018 Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 5 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1-6, 8-10 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian 14-17, 24 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Sawadisavi 19 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Nick 7 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Lefebure 18 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Sawadisavi, Lefebure 20 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Nick, Jamieson 11 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Pahwa 12 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Pahwa, Jamieson 13 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Cooper 21 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian. Wang 25 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Nick, Wagreich ’770 26 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Wagreich ’770 27 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Bookless 28 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Nick OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 6 After considering the argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the appealed rejections. We adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 7-60) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 57-73) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and emphasize the following. CLAIM 1 First Argument - Reference Teachings Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the combination of Venkatraman, Duncan, and Mian fails to disclose or suggest “controlling an aerial device to fly along a lateral side of a vehicle with a camera that generates image data of motors and/or brakes of the vehicle.” Appeal Br. 10. Regarding Venkatraman, Appellant argues that the reference discloses “an unmanned aerial monitoring vehicle” that captures images of “railway track features and adjacent structures,” but is silent with respect to capturing images of motors and brakes of a vehicle or being flown alongside of the vehicle. Id. Regarding Duncan, Appellant argues that the disclosed aircraft acquires “environment data regarding a driving environment of the motor vehicle,” but does not teach “controlling the aircraft to fly along a lateral side of the motor vehicle nor generating image data of motors and/or brakes of the motor vehicle via a camera onboard the aircraft.” Id. at 11. Lastly, Appellant argues that Mian discloses obtaining image data using a stationary, ground-based sensor, instead of the recited Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 7 “aerial off-board device” or “generating image data from an aerial off-board device controlled to fly along a lateral side of a non-aerial vehicle.” Id. In response, the Examiner explains that “Venkatraman [0035] [0192] system may also use unmanned aerial monitoring vehicle (not shown in Figure) for capturing, measuring, computation and performing preliminary analytics of railway track features and adjacent structure using embedded computational video analytics, image processing and artificial neural networks.” Ans. 58. The Examiner reasons that the term “railway track adjacent environment,” as disclosed in paragraph 35 of Venkatraman, “includes image data of motors and/or brakes of the vehicle” because the claim is not specific enough and any image of the surrounding would include traction motors or brakes, which are visible from the sides of the vehicle. See Ans. 58-59. According to the Examiner, this interpretation is supported by Mian’s Figures 1 and 3 showing a sensor assembly that is positioned on the side of the vehicle and captures an image of the brakes. Ans. 60-61 (citing Mian ¶¶ 30-31, Figs. 1, 3). We begin our analysis with claim interpretation. Claim 1 recites different elements of an image capturing system including “the camera configured to generate the image data of the upcoming segment of the route and of one or more traction motors or brakes of the non-aerial vehicle.” The specific ways the camera is used to capture images do not distinguish the claimed features from the prior art image capturing system that includes a camera on a flying vehicle and is capable of capturing images related to the surrounding environment and parts of the non-aerial vehicle. Functional recitations in an apparatus claim are given weight in that the corresponding prior art structures must possess the capability of performing the recited Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 8 function. See Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[C]hoosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, our reviewing court guides that the patentability of an apparatus claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Regarding the recited “the camera configured to generate the image data of . . .,” we also observe that the content or type of such information is non-functional descriptive material, which cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been anticipated by the prior art. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (noting that when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability); King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he relevant question is whether ‘there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.’”) (citations omitted); see also Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274-75 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, slip op. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 2006) (Rule 36); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). Although we will not disregard any claim limitations and will assess the claimed invention as a whole, we will follow the Federal Circuit’s guidance from the Gulack decision and will “not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 9 relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (discussing Gulack). Here, we agree with the Examiner’s findings with respect to Venkatraman, Duncan, and Mian and adopt them as our own. See Final Act. 7-12. For example, the Examiner properly relied on Venkatraman as disclosing a camera mounted on fixed locations or unmanned aerial monitoring vehicles for capturing images of the surrounding features or structures and transmitting the image data wirelessly to the onboard computer of the moving vehicle. See Venkatraman ¶¶ 23, 27, 32-35, 192. In particular, Venkatraman’s discussion of capturing “real time video images of railway track system and other components such as railway beds and foundations systems, railway track adjacent environment and geographical features” would imply that the aerial monitoring vehicle flies close to and along a lateral side of the train. See Ans. 58 (citing Venkatraman ¶ 35). Duncan’s teachings related to an onboard display for displaying a live feed of the upcoming segment of the route and a processor for controlling the aerial device and Mian’s disclosure of capturing image data of the vehicle brakes provide the recited display of the specific type of image, which may be captured by the aerial vehicle instead of the fixed sensors of Mian. See Ans. 60-61 (stating “[w]hile Venkatraman’s UAV take image of ‘railway track adjacent environment’ it will include train motors and/or brakes. The claimed limitation is related to camera operation. There is no technical specificity about how the camera is carried and so is not patentable distinction.”). Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 10 Second Argument - Combination of References Appellant contends that the combination of the references is improper because “the Office is justifying the combination of Venkatraman and Mian using basic knowledge or common sense,” whereas “[t]here is no concrete evidence in the record to teach or suggest controlling the unmanned aerial monitoring vehicle of Venkatraman to generate image data of vehicle motors and/or brakes.” Appeal Br. 11-12. According to Appellant, Venkatraman’s unmanned aerial vehicle is used “to generate image data of railway track features for the purpose of detecting harmful route conditions and preventing disasters” and, if placed at a wayside location, would have limited ability “to monitor the railway track features for preventing disasters because the field of view is limited and static.” Appeal Br. 12. Similarly, Appellant argues that placing Duncan’s aircraft at a wayside location would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because it is intended to fly above a vehicle to provides information about the driving environment of a vehicle. Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Venkatraman teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle for generating images of the track environment, but argues that the images are from a limited field of view and mainly used for safety purposes and preventing disaster. See Appeal Br. 12. The record and the claim construction, discussed above, supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. See Ans. 58-62. Although Venkatraman uses the captured images for risk assessment, as discussed above, the aerial vehicle is capable of capturing images of both the upcoming route and the components of the non-aerial vehicle such as the traction motors and brakes. In other words, an Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 11 aerial vehicle that is equipped with a camera to capture images of the route and the environment of the moving vehicle, is capable of capturing images of other structural or components that are in the field of view of such camera. See Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1385. Duncan describes a display located in a non-aerial vehicle that also includes processing capabilities to control the aerial vehicle to the position needed to capture the intended image. Duncan ¶¶ 42-45. Additionally, Mian discloses capturing images of the train brake system for evaluating train’s brake components, which suggests the specific type of images the camera on the aerial vehicle of Venkatraman is to capture. See Mian Abstract, ¶¶ 30-32, Fig. 1. Here, the teachings of Mian or Duncan suggest generating images of additional components related to the train brakes using the camera of an aerial monitoring vehicle disclosed in Venkatraman, which only involves determining what images the camera captures while the aerial vehicle flies alongside the train. See Ans. 62. In other words, this is a combination of familiar elements according to known methods with predicable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Additionally, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Furthermore, the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and this is a case in which the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 12 a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. We therefore find the Examiner provided a sufficiently reasoned explanation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references based on the above discussed improvements to Venkatraman’s system as modified by Duncan and Mian. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. CLAIM 14 Claim 14 requires that the system similar to the one recited in claim 1 further examines the image data by “comparing the image data to a benchmark profile of the route to detect the hazard by mapping the benchmark profile onto the image data and identifying differences between the image data and the benchmark profile” wherein the benchmark profile is “determined by identifying a line between two or more pixels in the image data having common intensities.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 because “Sawadisavi, however, does not identify any differences between the image data and the superimposed reference lines shown in Figure 8.4. The reference lines are generated based on the image data, so no comparison can be performed.” Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner responds by explaining that Sawadisavi discloses comparing the image data to a benchmark profile which is determined by a line between two or more pixels having common intensities. Ans. 63 (citing Sawadisavi Fig. 8.4). The Examiner further finds such comparison is used to identify defects or any needed maintenance of the track. Id. at 64. Furthermore, the Examiner finds Sawadisavi identifies critical defects on the upcoming route by analyzing the image data and comparing the captured image to measurements or profile images that are Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 13 determined based on identifying a line between pixels in the image. See id. at 64-65 (citing Sawadisavi pp. 18, 78, 81, 83, Figs. 8.1-8.6). Based on our review of the references, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. As explained by the Examiner and discussed above, the image data analysis described in the cited portions of Sawadisavi involved identifying a benchmark image based on the expected condition of the tracks. Additionally, Appellant’s disclosure describes the recited “benchmark profile” as “a designated layout of the route 902, such as where the route is expected to be in the image data obtained by one or more of the camera units disposed onboard the aerial device and/or vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 132. As such, Sawadisavi’s line between similar intensity pixels that show where the track component is expected to be satisfies the recited benchmark profile. Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s assertion that “[b]ecause Sawadisavi does not identify differences between the image data and the superimposed reference lines, the superimposed lines cannot represent the recited benchmark profile,” Appeal Br. 14, the benchmark profile of Sawadisavi includes the reference lines identifying the expected position of track components, which also provide the differences between the actual image data of the component and the reference lines. In other words, the disclosed analysis to determine the failure pattern or repair needs of the track implies comparing the image data to a benchmark profile. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 14. CLAIM 19 Claim 19 requires that the system similar to the one recited in claim 1 further includes “the aerial device controlled to fly along a path of the route Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 14 within a movement envelope bounded by a height of the non-aerial vehicle and a width of the non-aerial vehicle.” Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 because Nick relates to keeping pace with a fast-moving car, which refers to “a speed or velocity at which the drone can travel,” rather than a “movement envelope” that “refers to a position or location of the aerial device relative to the non- aerial vehicle and the route.” Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner responds by explaining that the disputed limitation is taught or suggested by the combined teachings of Venkatraman, Duncan, and Nick. See Ans. 65-67. More specifically, the Examiner finds Venkatraman teaches using the captured images of the railway tracks, the adjacent structures, and the train, which represent the captured features in the immediate surrounding of the moving train. Ans. 65 (citing Venkatraman ¶¶ 35, 192). The Examiner further finds Duncan discloses flying an aircraft associated with and in communication with a motor vehicle for capturing images of a driving route, upcoming traffic, and road blocks, which communicates with the vehicle using wireless and wired communications link or cable. Ans. 66 (citing Duncan ¶¶ 27, 42, 50, Fig. 2). According to the Examiner, a wired communication cable between the aircraft and the motor vehicle indicates that the aircraft or the “UAV” “flies within a movement envelope bounded by sizes of a non-aerial vehicle, because wired link can pull UAV behind the non-aerial vehicle’s movement envelope, if needed be.” Ans. 66. Lastly, the Examiner refers to Nick’s disclosure of using drones for filming the scenes involving fast moving cars. (Ans. 67 (citing Nick p. 2). Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 15 Based on our review of the reference, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. As explained by the Examiner, discussed above, the combination of Venkatraman and Duncan with Nick provide the teaching or suggestion for positioning the aerial vehicle close to the moving vehicle and within a movement envelope described by the disputed claim limitation. We also observe that modifying the movement envelope of the aerial vehicle is within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 19. CLAIM 5 Claim 5 depends indirectly from claim 1 and requires that a control signal is communicated to the non-aerial vehicle in response identifying a hazard and “the control signal causing the non-aerial vehicle to automatically slow the movement of the non-aerial vehicle.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reliance on Duncan’s paragraph 28 as disclosing the limitation of claim 5 is in error because “Duncan does not teach or suggest that the robotic system controlling the vehicle 12 is an aerial off-board device,” nor “that remote control of the vehicle 12 involves automatically slowing the vehicle 12 upon receipt of a control signal from an aerial offboard device responsive to identifying a hazard.” Appeal Br. 16. Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 16 We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because the Examiner found that Duncan provides for a non-aerial vehicle configured for both manual driving and remote driving, which meets the disputed limitation of controlling the movement of the vehicle when a hazard is detected based on analyzing the captured image data. The Examiner finds that the claimed control signal causing the non-aerial vehicle to automatically slowdown is disclosed because Duncan teaches “vehicle 12 can be configured for manual driving (e.g., via a driver seated within interior 20), remote driving (e.g., via remote system 16, etc.), and/or robotic [automatically slow] driving (e.g., via a robotic or vehicle control system [automatically slow the movement] on board or remote from vehicle 12)).” Final Act. 17 (citing Duncan ¶ 28); Ans. 68. The Examiner also finds Venkatraman’s system, as described in paragraph 232, generates warnings and alerts based on the detected defects or emergency maintenance requirements. Ans. 68. According to the Examiner, “[o]rdinary skill understands robotic control is electronic remote control. So Venkatraman Automatic Emergency Control System will be able to control Duncan’s robotic control system.” Id. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Duncan also teaches that “aircraft 14 is configured to receive or capture information regarding an environment, such as a driving environment for vehicle 12, and provide various outputs to one or both of vehicle 12 and remote system 16 based on the captured information.” Duncan ¶ 27. We specifically agree with the Examiner that modifying Venkatraman with the way Duncan’s aerial vehicle provides the necessary information for driving the non-aerial vehicle in the presence of a detected hazard. Venkatraman teaches an automatic emergency control system for a train that takes immediate Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 17 precautionary measures to avoid potential disaster (see ¶ 7), which benefits from the control signal of Duncan based on the captured image to generate a control signals that causes the non-aerial vehicle to avoid the hazard, included slowing the vehicle movement. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 5. CLAIM 7 Claim 7 depends directly from claim 1 and requires that “the one or more processors are configured to autonomously control the first aerial device to fly to a designated location along the route ahead of the non-aerial vehicle in the direction of travel of the non-aerial vehicle, . . . as the non- aerial vehicle approaches the designated location.” Appeal Br. 21-22 (Claims App.). Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because “the drone in Duncan is controlled to maintain the set distance ahead of the vehicle 12, such that the drone concurrently moves with the vehicle 12,” but “does not stop and hover in place at a designated location while the vehicle 12 keeps moving and approaches the drone at the designated location.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant further asserts that the Examiner’s reliance on Lefebure adds the teaching related to a drone that can hover in place, but does not teach controlling a drone to fly ahead of a vehicle along a route and hover at a designated location as the vehicle approaches that location. Id. In response, the Examiner explains that Duncan’s aerial vehicle may be “‘captively’ operated from or near vehicle 12,” which implies that the aerial vehicle is controlled to autonomously fly to a point as determined by the control processor. Final Act. 36 (citing Duncan ¶¶ 38, 54). The Examiner further finds Lefebure teaches a drone which is controlled by the Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 18 commands causing the drone to become stationary at a designated location. Final Act. (citing Lefebure ¶ 68). We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Appeal Br. 17, that none of the references disclose or suggest the disputed limitation, we note that Appellant’s contentions focus on the references separately. In fact, Appellant’s arguments ignore that the proposed rejection is based on the combination of an aerial vehicle for detecting potential hazards in the upcoming route as taught in Venkatraman with the specific commands generated by a processor to control the aerial vehicle, disclosed in Duncan, and the hovering action of a drone in a location ahead of the non-aerial vehicle of Lefebure. Each reference must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981))). Furthermore, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, the Examiner has identified the specific teachings or suggestions based on each reference, which when combined, would result in image capturing from an upcoming route segment by controlling an aerial vehicle having hovering capabilities to fly ahead of the non-aerial vehicle. As further reasoned by the Examiner, the proposed combination improves inspection capabilities and train disaster vulnerability assessment by detecting and generating images of the affected area when “Venkatraman Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 19 non-aerial moving vehicle will rely on Lefebure to keep UAV remain stationary to take more pictures and combined teaching will accommodate predictable results meeting claimed limitations.” Ans. 70. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 7. CLAIM 12 Claim 12 depends indirectly from claim 1 and requires that the one or more processors are configured to analyze the image data to determine that the off-board device flying the leading distance ahead of the non-aerial vehicle is at least one of within a threshold proximity of another vehicle on the route or is ahead of a rear end of the other vehicle on the route, and, in response thereto, the one or more processors being configured to cause the non-aerial vehicle to slow the movement of the non-aerial vehicle. Appeal Br. 22-23 (Claims App.). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reliance on Jamieson’s paragraph 20 as disclosing the limitation of claim 12 is in error because “Jamieson discloses a scanning module 20 located at the front of a railway engine car 10, and the scanning module 20 scans the tracks 14 ahead of the engine car 10” but “is silent with respect to aerial devices, so there is no determination of whether a device off-board the engine car 10 is flying within a threshold proximity of another vehicle on the route or is ahead of a rear end of the other vehicle on the route.” Appeal Br. 18. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. As found by the Examiner, Jamieson discloses a non-aerial vehicle configured to fly ahead of a moving train and within a certain distance from an approaching train which provides image data in sufficient time within which evasive measures such as slowing or stopping the train may take place. Final Act. 48 (citing Jamieson ¶ 20); Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 20 see also Ans. 71. We specifically agree with the Examiner that the cited portion of Jamieson’s disclosure provides for an aerial vehicle that flies ahead of a train within a predetermined distance from another train and sends sufficient information to a processor to cause slowing the train. As further reasoned by the Examiner, combining Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Pahwa, and Jamieson teaches or suggests using the image data for emergency control and slowing the train, which “will improve safety for the trains observing from UAV with predictable results.” Ans. 72. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 12. CONCLUSION Based on our analysis above we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter of claims 1, 14, 19, 5, 7, and 12 would have been obvious in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the above reasons and those provided by the Examiner. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining claims, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 10−19. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 8-10 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian 1-6, 8-10 14-17, 24 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Sawadisavi 14-17, 24 19 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Nick 19 Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 21 7 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Lefebure 7 18 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Sawadisavi, Lefebure 18 20 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Nick, Jamieson 20 11 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Pahwa 11 12 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Pahwa, Jamieson 12 13 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Cooper 13 21 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian. Wang 21 25 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Nick, Wagreich ’770 25 26 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Wagreich ’770 26 27 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Bookless 27 28 103(a) Venkatraman, Duncan, Mian, Nick 28 Overall Outcome 1-21, 24-28 Appeal 2020-004355 Application 15/061,129 22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED