Ex Parte HarveyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201814469825 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation