Gibbons, Gregory Dean.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 22, 20202019000242 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/067,910 10/30/2013 Gregory Dean Gibbons 383272-000003 7652 47604 7590 06/22/2020 DLA PIPER LLP US ATTN: PATENT GROUP 11911 FREEDOM DR. SUITE 300 RESTON, VA 20190 EXAMINER MCGUE, FRANK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/22/2020 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): PatentProsecutionRes@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GREGORY DEAN GIBBONS Appeal 2019/000242 Application 14/067,910 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–28, and 31–38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on May 28, 2020. We REVERSE. 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 Gregory Dean Gibbons. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-000242 Application 14/067,910 2 BACKGROUND The Specification discloses systems and methods that include a directional receive antenna with a plurality of antenna elements connected to a single input port of a receiver/processor device, the receiver/processor device being equipped with a process for precisely measuring the time of arrival of received signals and for combining knowledge of the relative positions of the receive antenna elements and the delays associated with the various cables, connectors, pads, or other devices involved, with observed differences in the time of arrival of signals of interest at pairs of the plurality of antenna elements, to derive accurate angle of arrival measurements of those signals of interest. Spec. 1 (filed Jan. 12, 2017). CLAIMS Claims 1, 28, and 38 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A directional receiver system comprising: a receiver comprising at least a single input port and an output; a plurality of receive antenna elements configured into a known geometric relationship to each other, each of the receive antenna elements being connected to the single input port of the receiver by one of a plurality of circuits, each of the plurality of circuits adding one of a plurality of known, fixed delays such that outputs from each of the receive antenna elements are received at the single input port of the receiver; and a circuit, coupled to the output of the receiver, including a time of arrival estimator configured to determine, from the outputs received at the single input port of the receiver, time differences at which signals from a source are incident upon the antenna elements and an angle of arrival estimator configured to determine an angular orientation of the source to the receive antenna elements based on the time differences and the known, fixed delays. Appeal 2019-000242 Application 14/067,910 3 Appeal Br. 23. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–11, 13, 14–19, 27, 28, and 31–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Odachi2 in view of Pfeil3 and Paschen.4 2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 12, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Odachi in view of Pfeil, Paschen, and Wicks.5 3. The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Odachi in view of Pfeil, Paschen, and Dooley.6 4. The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Odachi in view of Pfeil, Paschen, and Wax.7 5. The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Odachi in view of Pfeil, Paschen, and Smith.8 6. The Examiner rejects claims 23, 24, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Odachi in view of Pfeil, Paschen, and Husak.9 7. The Examiner rejects claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Odachi in view of Pfeil, Paschen, and Oliver.10 2 Odachi et al., US 6,377,213 B1, iss. Apr. 23, 2002. 3 Pfeil et al., US 6,252,867 B1, iss. June 26, 2001. 4 Paschen et al., US 2002/0135513 A1, pub. Sept. 26, 2002. 5 Wicks et al., US 2009/0015474 A1, pub. Jan. 15, 2009. 6 Dooley et al., US 6,891,499 B2, iss. May 10, 2005. 7 Wax, US 4,164,036, iss. Aug. 7, 1979. 8 Smith, US 3,863,256, iss. Jan. 28, 1975. 9 Husak et al., US 2006/0022801 A1, pub. Feb. 2, 2006. 10 Oliver, US 2008/0318591 A1, pub. Dec. 25, 2008. Appeal 2019-000242 Application 14/067,910 4 DISCUSSION With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Odachi teaches: a receiver 15 comprising at least a single input port (incoming arrow) and an output (outgoing arrow) with a plurality of receive antenna elements 11; configured into a known geometric relationship with each other (col. 6, lines 42–45), with each element 11; being connected to the single input port of the receiver. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that Paschen teaches “the signal paths by one of a plurality of circuits wherein each circuit adds one of a plurality of known, fixed delays (para. 0024, 0032).” Id. The Examiner then determines that “[i]t would have been obvious to modify [Odachi], [Pfeil] and [Paschen] by using the system [of Paschen] in order to take advantage of this well-known technology with predictable results.” Id. at 3–4. The Examiner further finds: In [Odachi], outputs from each of the receive antenna elements are received at the single input port of the receiver (Fig. 3, abstract). In [Pfeil], a circuit 112 is coupled to the output of the receiver including a time of arrival estimator (col. 3, lines 35–39) which is configured to determine from the outputs received at the single input port of the receiver time differences at which signals are incident upon the antenna elements (col. 7, lines 46–57) and configured to determine an angular orientation of the source to the receive antenna elements based on the time differences and the known fixed delays (col. 11, lines 13–18). Id. at 4. The Examiner then determines that “[i]t would have been obvious to modify [Odachi] by using the location technique of [Pfeil] as such is a well-known technique which would yield predictable results.” Id. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not established that the combination proposed would render obvious a circuit “configured to determine an angular orientation of the source to the receive Appeal 2019-000242 Application 14/067,910 5 antenna elements based on the time differences and the known, fixed delays” as required by claim 1. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Paschen teaches the addition of known, fixed delays to a plurality of circuits. Final Act. 3. In response to this finding, Appellant argues that Paschen teaches the use of adjustable time delays and does disclosing adding known, fixed delays to the signals. Appeal Br. 14–15. We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Paschen only appear to disclose the use of adjustable time delays. See Paschen ¶ 24. Notably, the Examiner does not appear to respond to this argument, and rather, the Examiner only states that Pfeil was cited for the feature of determining “angular orientation based on known, fixed signal delays.” Ans. 17. Without further explanation, it is not clear if and how the Examiner is relying on Paschen as teaching circuits that provide the addition of known, fixed delays. With respect to the Examiner’s reliance on Pfeil, we find that the Examiner does not explain adequately how Pfeil teaches a circuit that is configured to determine angular orientation based, at least in part, on the use of known, fixed delays. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Pfeil teaches a circuit “configured to determine an angular orientation of the source to the receive antenna elements based on the time differences and known fixed delays (col. 11, lines 13–18).” The Examiner does not provide further explanation in the rejection. In the Answer, the Examiner states: However, Pfeil et al. recite, in the pertinent part, “. . . After the receivers are coupled to receive a plurality of different carriers . . . . the . . . controller 110 controls the receiver switching apparatus 108 . . . to receive a same carrier during the time period 810 ... to obtain baseband data for direction of arrival calculations ... “ (Pfeil et al, col. 11, lines 4-13) the time period being the fixed, known delay. See also, Pfeil et al., col. 7, lines 46-58 which reads, in the pertinent part, “ . . . a signal which is Appeal 2019-000242 Application 14/067,910 6 then correlated with the remote site received baseband data to product timing offsets. The known sequence is compared to the information . . . to determine the timing difference relative to the remote unit’s internal reference, and subsequently the propagation delay . . .” (propagation delay being a fixed, known delay). Ans. 18. Here, the Examiner appears to be relying on either a “time period 810” or a “propagation delay” as known, fixed delays. Yet, the Examiner also does not explain how either of these elements represents a known, fixed delay that has been added to the outputs of a plurality of antenna elements as required by the claim. Simply put, the Examiner does not explain adequately how Pfeil or the other art of record is relied upon to teach or otherwise render obvious the language of claim 1 requiring that known, fixed delays are added to the outputs of the antenna elements and that the circuit is configured to determine angular orientation based on the known, fixed delays. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner relies on similar reasoning in rejecting independent claims 28 and 38, and we are persuaded of reversible error with respect to the rejections of those claims for the same reasons. Regarding the remaining claims and rejections, the Examiner does not provide additional findings or reasoning that cures the deficiency in the rejections of the independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of any of the claims on appeal. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3–28, and 31–38. Appeal 2019-000242 Application 14/067,910 7 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5–11, 13, 14–19, 27, 28, 31–34 103 Odachi, Pfeil, Paschen 1, 5–11, 13, 14–19, 27, 28, 31–34 3, 4, 12, 35 103 Odachi, Pfeil, Paschen, Wicks 3, 4, 12, 35 20 103 Odachi, Pfeil, Paschen, Dooley 20 21 103 Odachi, Pfeil, Paschen, Wax 21 22 103 Odachi, Pfeil, Paschen, Smith 22 23, 24, 36, 37 103 Odachi, Pfeil, Paschen, Husak 23, 24, 36, 37 25, 26 103 Odachi, Pfeil, Paschen, Oliver 25, 26 Overall Outcome 1, 3–28, 31–37 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation