Ex Parte Cutler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2014

12325708 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ROBERT THOMAS CUTLER, DEITRICH WERNER VOOK,
and ANDREW DAVID FERNANDEZ
_____________

Appeal 2012-006388
Application 12/325,708
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 4, and 6 thorough 12.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for determining a location of a
first device that emits a signal, from the magnitudes of the cross-correlations
of signals received from at least three sensors separated and spaced apart
from each other. See Abstract of Appellants’ Specification.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method of determining a location of a first device that
emits a signal, comprising:
Appeal 2012-006388
Application 12/325,708

2

providing at least three sensors separated and spaced apart from
each other; at each of the sensors, receiving the signal emitted by the
first device;
acquiring the received signals for each of the sensors;
determining magnitudes of cross-correlations between the
received signals for pairs of the sensors; and
determining the location of the first device from the magnitudes
of the cross-correlations of the received signals.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Goren (US 2004/0022214 A1). Answer 4–5.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Burgess (US 6,720,876 B1). Answer 5–6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Burgess. Answer 6–7.
The Examiner has rejected claims 11 through 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herman (U.S. 6,734,824 B2). Answer
7–8.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 through 4, and 6 thorough 12.
Appeal 2012-006388
Application 12/325,708

3

Anticipation rejection based upon Goren.
Appellants argue that Goren does not teach the claimed step of
“determining magnitudes of cross-correlations between the received signals
for pairs of the sensors” and determining a location from the cross
correlations. App. Br. 4 and 5. In response the Examiner states:
“cross-correlations” is a very broad term used when referring to
signal processing; therefore, the Examiner has interpreted the term to
mean “utilizing a mathematical formula to analyze and compare the
properties of signals of sensor pairs.”

Answer 17. Further, the Examiner finds that Goren teaches determining the
location using this interpretation of cross-correlation. Answer 19 (citing
Goren para. 0025). We disagree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation
and finding that Goren teaches the claimed cross-correlation. Appellants
have cited to several sources to show the term cross-correlation has a
specific meaning in the art. App. Br. 6–8. Further, the Examiner has not
presented evidence to demonstrate the interpretation of the term “cross
correlation” as “utilizing a mathematical formula to analyze and compare the
properties of signals of sensor pairs” is reasonable. We have reviewed the
cited teachings of Goren and, given the interpretation of the term cross
correlation proffered by Appellants, we do not find that Goren teaches
determining a location based upon the magnitude of the crosss correlations
between signals as claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4 as anticipated by Goren.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated December 8,
2011, Reply Brief dated March 2, 2012 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on January 3, 2012.
Appeal 2012-006388
Application 12/325,708

4

Anticipation and Obviousness rejections based upon Burgess
With respect to these rejections, Appellants assert Burgess does not
teach the claimed step of “determining magnitudes of cross-correlations
between the received signals for pairs of the sensors” and determining a
location from the cross correlations. App. Br. 9 through 11. In response, the
Examiner applying the same claim interpretation as discussed with respect to
the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 4 finds Burgess teaches this
limitation. Answer 19 and 20 (citing Burgess col. 18, ll. 9–42 and col. 19, ll.
1–32). We have reviewed the cited teachings of Burgess and, given the
interpretation of the term cross correlation proffered by Appellants, we do
not find Burgess teaches determining a location based upon the magnitude of
the cross correlations between signals as claimed. We recognize that
Burgess does discuss using an autocorrelation function and a cross
correlation function. However, these functions are discussed in conjunction
with identifying the code words of the transmitters and not used in a
determination of the location of the transmitters. Burgess (col. 19, ll. 9–11
and 42–54). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
and obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 6 through 10 based upon
Burgess.

Obviousness rejection based upon Herman
With respect to this rejection, Appellants assert Herman does not
teach the claimed “means for determining magnitudes of cross-correlations
of the received signals for pairs of the sensors” and determining a location
from the cross correlations. App. Br. 11. In response, the Examiner
Appeal 2012-006388
Application 12/325,708

5

applying the same claim interpretation as discussed with respect to the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 4 finds Herman teaches this
limitation. Answer 21 (citing Herman col. 5, ll. 21–54 and col. 6, ll. 1–32).
We have reviewed the cited teachings of Herman and, given the
interpretation of the term cross correlation proffered by Appellants, we do
not find Herman teaches determining a location based upon the magnitude of
the cross correlations between signals as claimed. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 through 21 as obvious over
Herman.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 4, and 6
thorough 12 is reversed.

REVERSED

lp