Ex Parte Harvey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

14469825 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/469,825 08/27/2014
123508 7590
Thomas D.Harvey
4001 Montpelier Road
Rockville, MD 20853
04/03/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Danaher Harvey
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.
Pinger 1763
EXAMINER
HULKA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
redredroad@yahoo.com
tom@guninsuranceblog.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS DANAHER HARVEY
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
Technology Center 3600
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision 1 rejecting claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated March 30, 2017.
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Claims 1, 4, and 15-173 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A first device configured to be located at an object to aid
in the location of the object when the object is lost and
submerged comprising:
a receiver at a submerged depth substantially below a
surface configured to receive an interrogation signal when sent
from a search second device near the surface; and
a transmitter at a submerged depth substantially below a
surface configured to transmit a ping signal to the search second
device in response to the interrogation signal from the search
second device; wherein
a parameter of the ping signal is modified as a function of
at least one of the parameters of the interrogation signal to
substantially increase the distance between the search second
device and the transmitter across which the search second
device can detect the ping signal from[ 4J the distance between
the search second device and the transmitter across which than[5J
the search second device can detect a ping signal from the
transmitter using the parameter without the modification.
2 We refer to the Claims Appendix filed with the Corrected Appeal Brief
dated August 18, 2017.
3 Independent claims 15 and 16 incorporate "the device" of independent
claim 4. See Br. 16-17 (Claims App.).
4 We understand this to mean "as compared to."
5 There appears to be a typographical error in the claim, in that the word
"than" may be deleted. See also independent claim 4. Br. 14 (Claims App.)
("across which than").
2
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
II. Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
III. Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Greelish (US 2005/0099892 Al;
published May 12, 2005) and Guigne (US 2009/0207694 Al;
published Aug. 20, 2009).
IV. Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 14--18, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Strat (US 2013/0242704 Al;
published Sept. 19, 2013) and Greelish.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23: "to substantially increase the distance"
The Examiner determines that claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23 fail to
comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, because in independent claims 1, 4, and 17, "[t]here is no clear
support [in the Specification] as to how including the time and location of
the initial signal could allow and enable an initial signal to be received and a
3
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
return signal to be sent from a 'substantially increased distance."' Final
Act. 2-3 (emphasis added). The Examiner determines that
[ t ]here appears to be essential steps or omitted elements in the
method and system claims that clearly identify to one having
ordinary skill in the art HOW time and location information is
used to modify a return signal at a "substantially increased
distance" - or what the specific criteria is to determine whether
a distance has been substantially increased. [6]
Id. at 3.
Appellant argues that the Specification teaches "that the ability to
predict the arrival time of a return ping can be used to detect a ping in a
narrow time window with a reduction of noise and an increase of range at a
given probability of detection" and that "[a] more complex method of
sending a ping signal to arrive at a predictable time" is also disclosed.
Br. 26 (citing Spec. i-fi-150-52, 54--56, Fig. 5). Appellant points out that
claims 1 and 4 do not limit the interrogation signal parameter to time or
location information, nor does claim 1 7, which specifies that the
interrogation signal parameter is encoded information.
To satisfy the written description requirement, "the [original]
specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled
6 Contrary to the Examiner's findings, the Examiner acknowledges in the
Examiner's Answer that the Specification discloses how ("what is done") to
modify the return signal, "which is merely increasing the signal strength"
and that "[a] common response to detection of weak signal ... [is to] reduce
noise or interference[] or increase the strength of the signal so that it could
be detected." Ans. 6.
4
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed."
Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(en bane). "[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the
application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the
inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date."
Id. "[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description
requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on
the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology." Id.
Appellant relies on the Specification's disclosure of the ability to
predict the arrival time of a return ping, with a reduction of noise, to support
the determination that Appellant actually invented modifying a parameter of
a ping signal so that the ping signal is detectable by a search second device
at an increased distance than at a distance the ping signal is detectable by
the search second device without the modification. Thus, we understand that
there is a distance at which a ping signal is no longer detectable by a search
second device, but for the claimed modification to the ping signal. 7
7 Cf The Board's Decision (Appeal 2016-007307) dated December 30,
2016, affirming the Examiner's rejection of claims that specified "an
increased distance between ... [a] device and ... [a] search second device,"
but did not specify that this increased distance is between a (first) device and
a search second device across which the search second device can detect the
ping signal and is also relative to the distance between the same (first)
device and search second device across which the second search device can
detect an unmodified ping signal, as currently claimed and as set forth supra.
See Decision 3-7, and specifically, id. at 2 (Claimed Subject Matter).
5
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
Regarding the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 4, the
Specification discloses that the "range" (and, therefore, the effectiveness of
an acoustic "pinger" to aid in locating a submerged object) is limited, for
example, by "space, weight and power conservation." Spec. i-f 2. The
Specification discloses that according to the invention, "the pinger can be
enabled to modify the ping signal on the basis of information gained from
the receipt of the broadcast interrogation signal ... [to] increase[] the ability
of the searcher to discover ... [the object]" (id. i-f 3 (emphasis added)), for
example, "the ping signal can be modified ... [by] timing the ping to arrive
at a time predictable by the searcher, beaming the ping in the direction from
which the interrogation signal arrived and implementing the ping with
parameters requested by the searcher" (id. i-f 4). However, the Specification
recognizes that "[ t ]he ping signal is modified on the basis of this information
to allow detection with greater probability or at a greater range." Spec.
i-f 17.
We do not find support in the record for Appellant's argument that the
ability to predict the arrival time of a return ping reasonably conveys to
those skilled in the art that the ping signal is modified to increase the
distance that the ping signal itself is able to travel and still be detected, as
compared to an unmodified ping signal. 8 However, regarding noise
reduction, the Specification discloses that
8 We also cannot find support in the record that modifying the parameters
set forth in the definition of "parameters of a ping signal," namely, "time of
transmission; frequency; pulse timing, length, and shape; embedded data;
6
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
[ t ]hose skilled in the use of signal processing technology will see
that the ability to apply a narrow time window to a signal without
loss to the signal to be recognized will allow a substantial
reduction in the noise obscuring the desired signal and will allow
recognition of a signal of substantially less energy. Signal
analysis software is here able to apply a narrow time window to
the signal with a resulting reduction in signal obscuration by
noise. This results in an increase in the range at which a signal
has any given probability of detection.
Spec. i-f 52 (emphasis added). Thus, we determine that the Specification
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of modifying the ping signal by using signal processing
technology to reduce noise, such that the ping signal is less obscured and can
be detectable at an increased distance as compared to the same ping signal
which is not modified by signal processing technology.
Additionally, the Specification discloses that, with reference to the
embodiment depicted in Figure 2,
the parameter of the interrogation signal measured is the
intensity of the received signal and the power control varies the
power level of the ping signal to facilitate target device
embedded identification; direction of emission; amplitude; and other
characteristics of the signal" affects range of detection, as stated, rather than
the "probability . . . or the ease of detection of the ping signal," where
power level and intensity, for example, is not expressly included in the
definition. Spec. i-f 33. However, as discussed in this Opinion, the ping
signal parameters of noise, power level, and intensity are "other
characteristics of the signal" disclosed in the Specification as affecting range
of detection, which we determine include whether the signal has been
subjected to noise reduction, and also power level and intensity, which do
affect range of detection.
7
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
discovery by the search device while balancing this requirement
with the requirement to conserve power usage to extend the life
of the power source 52 [of the target device].
Spec. i-f 40 (emphasis added). With respect to power level as a parameter
affecting the range of signal's detection, the Specification discloses that
"[t]he interrogations have a long range because the search vessel can supply
a large amount of power for their generation, but the ping signals have a
limited range because of the limited power available to the target device."
Id. i-f 39; see also id. i-f 3 ("[b ]ecause a searcher can use substantial and
renewable power resources, it is possible to broadcast a signal from the
searcher to the pinger device ... at a much greater range than from the
pinger to the searcher") (emphasis added). In other words, we understand
that a signal having a high power level travels an increased distance for
detection as compared to a signal having a low power level. Thus, the
Specification, again, reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the
inventor had possession of modifying the ping signal by increasing the
power level of the ping signal, which increases the distance at which the
signal may be detected as compared to a signal having a low or unmodified
power level.
The Specification also discloses that "[t]he ping signal multi-
transducer emits a ping signal 4 7 that is directed toward the search device,
which is thereby increased in intensity in that direction and can be detected
at an increased distance between the search device and the target device."
Spec. i-f 58. We understand that the intensity of a signal affects the range at
which the signal may be detected, and therefore, the Specification further
8
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of modifying the ping signal by increasing the intensity of the
ping signal, which increases the distance at which the signal may be detected
as compared to a signal having a lower intensity (i.e., unmodified).
Independent claim 1 7 does not recite a limitation regarding increasing
the distance of detectability of a modified signal, but rather, requires only
determining a parameter of the ping signal "at least in part by the extracted
encoded information to help the search second device determine the
presence of the target device." Br. 17-18 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Examiner has not articulated a rejection of this subject matter as failing
to comply with the written description requirement, nor has the Examiner
articulated such a rejection with respect to independent claims 15 and 16
(which incorporate independent claim 4) or any of the dependent claims.
Regarding the Examiner's determination that the Specification does
not disclose how time and location information from an interrogation signal
is used to modify a return signal to increase its detectable distance, we agree
with Appellant that the Examiner's finding does not address the subject
matter recited in the independent claims. Moreover, all that is required,
according to the Specification, is a recognition of a parameter, whereby the
microprocessor modifies the ping signal as a function9 of such recognition.
9 An ordinary meaning of the claim term "function," consistent with the
Specification, is "quality or characteristic that depends upon and varies with
another." MICROSOFT ENCART A COLLEGE DICTIONARY 579 (2001 ).
9
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
See, e.g., Spec. i-f 40 ("the parameter of the interrogation signal measured is
the intensity of the received signal and the power control varies the power
level of the ping signal to facilitate target device discovery ... ").
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 4, and 17, and claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10-14, 18, and 21-23
depending therefrom, or independent claims 15 and 16, which incorporate
the device of independent claim 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement because of the
claim language "to substantially increase the distance."
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23: "submerged depth"
The Examiner also determines that independent claims 1, 4, and 17
claim a submerged first device comprising a receiver at a submerged depth
and a transmitter at a submerged depth, but fail to "specify" whether these
submerged depths are the same or different depths. Whether the receiver
and transmitter of the submerged first device are submerged at the same or
different depths is not specified in the claimed subject matter. This is simply
a matter of breadth of claim scope. Such breadth alone does not demonstrate
a lack of compliance with the written description requirement.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 4, and 17, and claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10-14, 18, and 21-23
depending therefrom, or independent claims 15 and 16, which incorporate
the device of independent claim 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement because of the
repeated claim term "submerged depth."
10
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
Rejection II
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23: "to substantially increase the distance"
The Examiner rejects claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite because, with respect to
independent claims 1, 4, and 17, "[t]here is no clear support [in the
Specification] as to how including the time and location of the initial signal
could allow and enable an initial signal to be received and a return signal to
be sent from 'an increased distance."' Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner
determines that
there appears to be essential steps or omitted elements in the
method and system claims that clearly identify to one having
ordinary skill in the art HOW time and location information is
used to modify a return signal at a "substantially increased
distance" - or what the specific criteria is to determine whether
a distance has been substantially increased. [ 1 OJ
Id. at 4.
Claims, when read in light of the Specification, must "reasonably
apprise those skilled in the art both of the utilization and scope of the
invention" using language "as precise as the subject matter permits." In re
Packard, 751F.3d1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In determining whether a
claim is definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, "[t]he USPTO, in
1° Contrary to the Examiner's findings, the Examiner acknowledges in the
Examiner's Answer that the Specification discloses how ("what is done") to
modify the return signal, "which is merely increasing the signal strength"
and that "[a] common response to detection of a weak signal ... [is to]
reduce noise or interference ... or increase the strength of the signal so that it
could be detected." Ans. 6.
11
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
examining an application, is obliged to test the claims for reasonable
precision according to ... [this principle]." Id. Here, the Examiner has not
identified words or phrases in the claims that are unclear, but rather, has
determined that the Specification does not provide support for the claims,
which is not a requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
For clarification, we determine that independent claims 1 and 4 define
a distance between a search second device located "near the surface" and a
transmitter located "at a submerged depth substantially below ... [the]
surface," "across which the search second device can detect the ping
signal." Br. 13, 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The claims imply that
the search second device cannot detect the ping signal at a distance outside
of the specified distance; in other words, there is a detectable distance of the
ping signal by the search second device. Further, the claims require, in
relevant part, modification of a parameter of a ping signal as a function of at
least one of the parameters of the interrogation signal "to substantially
increase the distance between the search second device and the transmitter
across which the search second device can detect the ping signal," as
compared to the detectable distance by the second search device of an
unmodified ping signal. Thus, there is a detectable distance between the
second search device and the transmitter for an unmodified signal, and a
detectable distance between the second search device and the transmitter for
12
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
a signal modified as claimed, and the latter is at a substantially increased
distance than the former.
Although the absence of a supporting disclosure can, at times, lead to
difficulties understanding the scope of the claimed subject matter, it is the
latter, the skilled artisan's ability to understand what is claimed, that forms
the ultimate standard for compliance with § 112, second paragraph. In re
Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970). The Examiner has not
articulated reasons why a skilled artisan would have difficulty understanding
the scope of the claimed subject matter. Even if there were a lack of
descriptive support, which, as discussed above, there is not, the absence of
descriptive support alone does not necessarily demonstrate indefiniteness.
In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909 (CCPA 1970), cited in MANUAL OF
PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE§ 2174 (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 4, and 17, and claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10-14, 18, and 21-23
depending therefrom, or independent claims 15 and 16, which incorporate
the device of independent claim 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite, for reciting "to substantially increase the distance."
Claims 1---8, 10-18, and 21-23: "submerged depth"
The Examiner also determines that independent claims 1, 4, and 17
claim a submerged first device comprising a receiver at a submerged depth
and a transmitter at a submerged depth, but fail to "specify" whether these
submerged depths are at the same or different depths, and that, therefore,
these claims are indefinite. Final Act. 4. As discussed supra, whether the
13
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
receiver and transmitter of the submerged first device are submerged at the
same depth is left open ended in the claimed subject matter; in other words,
the meaning of the claims is reasonably precise: the depths may or may not
be the same.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 4, and 17, and claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10-14, 18, and 21-23
depending therefrom, or independent claims 15 and 16, which incorporate
the device of independent claim 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite, because of the claim terms "submerged depth."
Claims 1---8, 10-18, and 21-23: "the search second device"
The Examiner further determines that independent claims 1, 4, and 1 7
are indefinite because the recitation of" ... [a] second search device ...
implies that there is a first search device," however, only" ... [the] first
device" or "the device" is recited. Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). We
disagree that the use of the claim term "a search second device" requires
claims 1 and 4 to also recite "a search.first device," in order for claims 1 and
4 to be clear. Emphasis added. Claims 1 and 4 recite "[a] first device" and
"a search second device." Emphasis added. We are not apprised of any
reasons why the additional adjective "search" as used to modify the second
device renders the meanings of these claim terms in independent claims 1
and 4 unclear.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 4, and 17, and claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10-14, 18, and 21-23
depending therefrom, or independent claims 15 and 16, which incorporate
14
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
the device of independent claim 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite, because of the claim term "second search device."
Claim 14: "the device"
Claim 14 recites "[t]he device of claim 10; wherein: the
microprocessor employs the encoded information to calculate a relative
location of the search second device to the device." Br. 16 (Claims App.
(emphasis added)). The Examiner determines that reference to "the device"
in claim 14 lacks antecedent basis, and is, therefore, unclear. Final Act. 4.
Claim 14 depends from claim 10, which recites, in relevant part,
"[t] he device of claim 4 ... further comprising a microprocessor" (Br. 16
(Claims App. (emphasis added))), and claim 10 depends from independent
claim 4, which recites "[a] first device ... comprising ... a receiver ...
configured to receive information when sent from a search second device
... comprising encoded information ... wherein a parameter of the ping
signal is modified as a function of the encoded information to substantially
increase the distance between the search second device and the transmitter
... [of the first device]" (id. at 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added)). In the
context of claims 4, 10, and 14, we determine that because claim 14
specifies that the microprocessor employs the encoded information to
15
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
calculate a relative location of the search second device to the device, "the
device" must only refer to the first device recited in claim 4.
Accordingly, for this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 14, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite, because of
the claim term "the device."
Rejection III
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
"Greelish teaches a device configured to be associated with a lost and
submerged object," comprising a receiver at a submerged depth that receives
an interrogation signal (i.e., Greelish' s transceivers 100, individually A, B,
C) and a transmitter at a submerged depth that transmits a ping signal (i.e.,
Greelish's sonic transducer 104). Final Act. 5 (citing Greelish Fig. 5); see
also Greelish i-f 7 6). The Examiner determines that Greelish "implies but
does not explicitly teach" that the transmitter (i.e., Greelish's sonic
transducer 104) is configured to transmit a ping signal to a search second
device in response to the interrogation signal from the search second device,
as claimed, or modifying a parameter of the ping signal, as a function of at
least one of the parameters of the interrogation signal, to substantially
increase the distance between the search second device and the transmitter
across which the search second device can detect the ping signal as
compared to the distance between the search second device and the
16
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
transmitter across which the search second device can detect an unmodified
signal, as claimed. Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on Guigne for teaching these claim limitations.
Id. (citing Greelish i-fi-1 7 6-81, claim 13; Guigne i-fi-1 45--46). The Examiner
reasons that it would have been obvious "to modify the system of Greelish to
alter the return (ping) signal in order to verify or validate that the initial
transmission was received, or if a transit time between the search device and
the device was calculated and was to be transmitted back to the search
device." Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner relies on the same findings
and reasoning in the rejection of independent claim 17. Id. at 6.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Greelish fails to disclose "an
interrogation and response system," or put another way, a receiver that
receives an interrogation signal and a transmitter that transmits a ping signal
in response to the interrogation signal, as claimed. Br. 16. As set forth
supra, the Examiner's finding is that Greelish implies this claim limitation,
while Guigne expressly discloses it.
Greelish consistently discloses a motion compensation system,
wherein "[a]coustic ranging from the pingers to the seabed transceivers
establishes the location of the hull plane relative to the seabed reference
plane" (Greelish i-f 12 (emphasis added)) and that "the transceivers hav[e]
transducers to be able to detect pulses from pingers on the hull" (id. i-f 16
(emphasis added); see also Greelish i-fi-122, 23, 45, 60, 65----67, 76, 77, Fig. 5).
17
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
Although by definition, Greelish's transceivers 100 11 are capable of
receiving and transmitting signals, the Examiner has not provided, nor can
we find, support in Greelish for the Examiner's finding, as set forth supra,
that Greelish implies sonic transducer 104 transmits a ping signal in response
to the interrogation signal, as claimed. Rather, Greelish, discloses that
[ c ]ontrol of the timing of pingers E, F and G is established by a
master clock in a controller 50, which in one embodiment is
carried aboard a ship 51 adjacent vessel 32. The master clock
also controls the timing for clocks carried by each of the
transceivers A, B, and C. . .. [T]he start of the pinger pulse is
used to reset the transceivers' clocks, which record their count
upon receipt of a pinger pulse. In this way, the range of each of
the pingers can be established with relation to each of the
transceivers.
Greelish i-f 61.
Thus, a preponderance of evidence fails to support the Examiner's
finding that Greelish implies a transmitter (i.e., transceivers A, B, C)
configured to transmit a ping signal to the search second device (i.e., pingers
E, F, G) in response to the interrogation signal (i.e., pinger pulse) from the
search second device (i.e., pingers E, F, G), as claimed. Nor does the
Examiner propose modifying Greelish, such that transceivers A, B, C
transmit a ping signal to pingers E, F, G. Moreover, as set forth supra, the
Examiner only provides rationale for "alter[ing] the return (ping) signal"
(emphasis added); the Examiner fails to provide rationale for modifying
11 Definition of transceiver is "a radio transmitter and receiver combined in
a single, often portable unit." MICROSOFT ENCARTA COLLEGE DICTIONARY
1525 (2001).
18
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
Greelish's system, which calculates the range between the transceivers A, B,
C and pingers E, F, G without using a return signal from the transceivers A,
B, C to pingers E, F, G, to include such a return ping signal, to result in the
claimed subject matter.
Independent claim 4 similarly requires "a transmitter ... configured to
transmit a ping signal to the search second device in response to the
interrogation signal from the search second device" (Br. 14 (Claims App.))
and independent claim 17 also similarly requires "an interrogation signal
sent from a search second device" and "transmitting from a transmitter ... a
ping signal to the search second device in response to the interrogation
signal" (id. at 17-18 (Claims App.)). The Examiner relies on similar
findings with respect to Greelish in the rejection of claims 4 and 17. See
Final Act. 5, 6.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 4, and 17, and claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10-14, 18, and 21-23
depending therefrom, or independent claims 15 and 16, which incorporate
the device of independent claim 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Greelish and Guigne.
Rejection IV
Regarding independent claims 1, 4, and 17, the Examiner finds, inter
alia, that "Strat teaches a device configured to be located at an object" and
"a method to aid in the location of ... [an] object," comprising a receiver
19
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
(Strat's transducer 16) configured to receive an interrogation signal (Strat's
reference numeral 11 ). Final Act. 11.
Appellant correctly argues, inter alia, that the Examiner's reliance on
Strat's reference numeral 11 for disclosing an interrogation signal results in
the failure of Strat to disclose a second search device from which the
interrogation is sent. Br. 22 ("[Strat's] environmental signals do not come
from the reader"). Strat discloses that reference numeral 11 refers to "an
ultrasonic sound pressure wave or an applied pressure 11" (Strat i-f 15), also
described as "sound and/or mechanical vibrations 11 caused by movement,
or pressure directly applied to the transducer, i.e.[,] the transducer of the tag
is used to detect movement" (id. i-f 16). Cf Id. i-f 11 (also disclosing that "the
ultrasonic tag ... ordinarily listens for a trigger signal from an ultrasonic
reader").
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 4, and 17, and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 18, 22, and
23 depending therefrom, or independent claims 15 and 16, which
20
Appeal2018-001975
Application 14/469,825
incorporate the device of independent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Strat and Greelish.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement, is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite, is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Greelish and Guigne is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6, 10, 11, 14--18, and 21-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Strat and Greelish is reversed.
REVERSED
21