Rosemount Aerospace Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 23, 2021

2020006151 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 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.
15/161,696 05/23/2016 Travis W. Fleck 93584US01-U100-012807 1874
113529 7590 11/23/2021
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
JONES, HEATHER RAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2021 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TRAVIS W. FLECK and GERALD L. BROWN

____________

Appeal 2020-006151
Application 15/161,696
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–3 and 6–20. Claims 4 and 5 are cancelled. We
have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to aligning a
taxi-assist camera such that each image frame of real-time video that the
camera generates has a standard presentation format. (Abstract.)

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Rosemount Aerospace Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2020-006151
Application 15/161,696

2
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. An alignment system comprising:
a taxi-assist camera configured to be mounted to an aircraft and
oriented to provide real-time video during taxi operations
of both a specific feature(s) of the aircraft and of nearby
objects external to the aircraft, the real-time video
comprising a time sequence of image frames, each image
frame including a two-dimensional array of pixel data;
a feature detector configured to detect the specific feature( s) of
the aircraft within at least one of the image frames;
a feature comparator configured to compare the detected specific
feature(s) within the at least one of the image frames with
a reference feature within a reference image, the feature
detector comprising a noise reducer configured to zero the
pixel data of the at least one edge image for pixels that
have an amplitude that is less than a threshold, wherein the
noise reducer is further configured to adaptively set the
threshold so that fewer than a predetermined number of
pixels have amplitudes that are not less than the threshold,
and thereby are not zeroed; and
an image transformation operator configured to transform each
of the image frames of the real-time video into a
transformed image frame such that the detected specific
feature(s) is located at a two-dimensional location(s)
within each of the transformed image frames, the two-
dimensional location within each of the transformed image
frames corresponding to a two-dimensional reference
location corresponding to the reference feature within the
reference image.
(Appeal Br. II, Claims Appx. 2.)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Benning et al. (EP 2495168 A1, pub. Sept. 5,
Appeal 2020-006151
Application 15/161,696

3
2012), Meadow (US 2013/0027554 A1, pub. Jan. 31, 2013), and Natroshvili
et al. (US 2012/0026352 A1, pub. Feb. 2, 2012). (Final Act. 4–21.)
The Examiner rejected claims 6–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Benning, Meadow, Natroshvili, and Huttenlocher et al.
(“Comparing Images Using the Hausdorff Distance,” IEEE Transactions On
Pattern Analysis And Machine Intelligence, Vol. 15, No. 9, Sept. 1993).
(Final Act. 21–24.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Benning,
Meadow, and Natroshvili teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitation, “wherein the noise reducer is further configured to adaptively set
the threshold so that fewer than a predetermined number of pixels have
amplitudes that are not less than the threshold, and thereby are not zeroed,”
and the commensurate limitation of independent claim 16. (Appeal Br. 5–
14.)

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 6, 2020) (herein, “Appeal
Br.”); the corrected Appeal Brief (filed May 12, 2020) (herein, “Appeal Br.
II”); the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 26, 2020) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final
Office Action (mailed Oct. 4, 2019) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed July 23, 2020) (herein, “Ans.”) for the
respective details.
Appeal 2020-006151
Application 15/161,696

4
ANALYSIS
For the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosures of Meadow and Natroshvili of edge detection using the “Canny
Edge algorithm.” (Final Act. 6–8; Meadow ¶¶ 32, 86; Natroshvili ¶¶ 11,
45.) The Examiner finds that Meadow teaches identifying edge pixels using
thresholds, ensuring that enough pixels are identified as edge pixels to create
a smooth and distinctive edge, and that Natroshvili teaches adaptively setting
the thresholds, and thus the combination teaches “a noise reducer that is
configured to adaptively set the threshold so that . . . fewer than the
predetermined number of pixels have amplitudes that are not less than the
threshold, and thereby are not zeroed.” (Final Act. 2–3.)
As explained by Appellant, the Canny Edge algorithm applies a
Gaussian filter to the pixel data resulting in a “slightly blurred version of the
original” to eliminate isolated noisy pixels, then localizes the center area of
an edge, and uses a lower and upper threshold value to eliminate pixels with
values below the lower threshold and retain pixels above the higher
threshold. (Appeal Br. 8–9; Meadow ¶¶ 89–94.) Pixels that fall between the
two thresholds are retained if located adjacent to a strong edge pixel. (Id.)
Meadow does not disclose if the threshold values are adaptively determined,
but Natroshvili does: in that reference, the thresholds are determined based
on the calculated mean and variance of the intensity values of the pixels.
(Appeal Br. 11; Natroshvili ¶ 40.) Appellant argues that, even if Natroshvili
adaptively sets thresholds, the combination of Meadow and Natroshvili does
not teach or suggest “ensuring that ‘fewer than a predetermined number of
pixels’ are included in the edge image, as recited in Applicant’s claims.”
(Appeal Br. 12.)
Appeal 2020-006151
Application 15/161,696

5
The Examiner responds:
[Per the Canny Algorithm, p]ixels above the high threshold are
considered to be an edge and if that edge is not complete, then
the system can include certain pixels that are above the low
threshold. Having an upper and lower threshold ensures that
the detector will have enough pixels to be considered an edge
for creating a smooth and distinctive edge. Furthermore, the
predetermined number of pixels is considered to be the number
of pixels that is required to create a smooth and distinctive
edge. The Appellant’s specification does not define what the
predetermined number is or how that predetermined number is
determined.
(Ans. 24.)
Appellant replies that the Examiner’s analysis fails because, in the
asserted combination, no “predetermined number of pixels” is used to set a
threshold by the Canny Algorithm, and instead of directly limiting the
number of non-zeroed pixels used in the edge image, the Canny Algorithm
indiscriminately increases the number of non-zeroed pixels, thereby never
ensuring that the number of non-zeroed pixels is limited. (Reply Br. 2.)
We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Benning, Meadow,
and Natroshvili does not teach or suggest “wherein the noise reducer is
further configured to adaptively set the threshold so that fewer than a
predetermined number of pixels have amplitudes that are not less than the
threshold, and thereby are not zeroed.” Rather, as Appellant argues, the
cited portions at most teach the creation of a “smooth and distinctive edge”
by increasing the number of non-zeroed pixels, rather than limiting the
number of non-zeroed pixels to fewer than a predetermined number. (Reply
Br. 3.)
Appeal 2020-006151
Application 15/161,696

6
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claims 1 and 16. We also do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of clams 2, 3, 11–15, and 17–20 over Benning, Meadow, and
Natroshvili, and of claims 6–10 over Benning, Meadow, Natroshvili, and
Huttenlocher, which claims depend from claims 1 or 16. (Appeal Br. 14.)
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 11–20 103 Benning, Meadow,
Natroshvili
1–3, 11–
20
6–10 103 Benning, Meadow,
Natroshvili,
Huttenlocher
6–10
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–20

REVERSED