Gibbons, Gregory Dean.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 22, 2020

2019000242 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2020)

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