Heiko Sgarz et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 5, 2019

14363687 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2019)

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. 14/363,687 06/06/2014 Heiko Sgarz 2178-1134 9824 10800 7590 09/05/2019 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER BARKER, MATTHEW M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HEIKO SGARZ, MARTIN POHLMANN, and JAN-MICHAEL BROSI1 Appeal 2018-007506 Application 14/363,687 Technology Center 3600 Before LINDA E. HORNER, DANIEL S. SONG, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–8, 12, and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 The real party in interest is Appellant, Robert Bosch GmbH. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-007506 Application 14/363,687 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a hand tool device and method for determining a circularly polarized component of a locating signal. Spec. 1:14–23. Claims 1, 12, and 13 are independent, and claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A handheld tool apparatus, comprising: a computation unit including a processor; and a locating antenna configured to receive a locating signal, wherein the processor is configured to ascertain at least one piece of position information of a locatable object by determining a circularly polarized component of the locating signal, wherein the locating antenna has an antenna element surface configured to transmit signals in at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions and to receive reflections of the signals from the at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions, wherein the processor is configured to cause the locating antenna to transmit the locating signal separately in the at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the circularly polarized component from reflections of the locating signal received by the locating antenna from the at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions, and wherein the processor is configured to ascertain the at least one piece of position information of the locatable object by determining a phase shift of the circularly polarized component of the locating signal. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Appeal 2018-007506 Application 14/363,687 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Goggins, Jr. (“Goggins”) Fitzpatrick Cole US 4,005,414 US 2006/0087385 A1 US 7,345,618 B1 Jan. 25, 1977 Apr. 27, 2006 Mar. 18, 2008 Krapf2 WO 2010/023152 A1 Mar. 4, 2010 REJECTIONS I. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. II. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fitzpatrick, Krapf, and Cole. III. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fitzpatrick, Krapf, Cole, and Goggins. IV. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fitzpatrick and Goggins. OPINION Rejection I, Written Description The Examiner finds that claims 6 and 8 fail to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2–3. Appellant does not contest this rejection. Appeal Br. 5–13. Accordingly, we summarily sustain Rejection I. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (“An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an 2 The Examiner refers to the U.S. national stage application publication US 2011/0181483 A1 for the English-language translation of Krapf. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2018-007506 Application 14/363,687 4 amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.”); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075) (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection. If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue -- or more broadly, on a particular rejection -- the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.”). Rejection II, Fitzpatrick, Krapf, and Cole Claims 1, 5, and 7 The Examiner finds that Fitzpatrick discloses many of the elements recited in independent claim 1 and refers to paragraph 41 of Fitzpatrick as disclosing a processor (signal processor 406) configured to determine a circularly polarized component from reflections of a locating signal received by a locating antenna from at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions. Final Act. 4.3 Appellant argues that Fitzpatrick does not disclose or suggest transmitting signals in at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions, and, therefore, Fitzpatrick also does not receive signals from the at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts that, instead, Fitzpatrick discloses receiving only circularly polarized reflections. Id. (citing Fitzpatrick ¶ 29, claim 18). Appellant contends that “[b]ecause Fitzpatrick does not disclose transmitting or receiving signals in 3 The Examiner relies on Krapf to teach an antenna surface that transmits and receives signals in two orthogonal, linear polarization directions and relies on Cole to teach the use of shifts in frequency to determine position information regarding an object. Final Act. 4–5. Appeal 2018-007506 Application 14/363,687 5 linear polarization directions, Fitzpatrick cannot disclose determining a circularly polarized component from reflected signals received by the antenna from linear polarization directions.” Id. at 9–10. Thus, according to Appellant, Fitzpatrick fails to disclose a processor configured to determine a circularly polarized component from reflections of a locating signal received by the locating antenna from at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions as recited in claim 1. Id. at 10. In response, the Examiner finds that (i) Fitzpatrick transmits signals in at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions, (ii) Fitzpatrick receives the same kind of signals, as reflections, via orthogonal linear polarization antenna elements, and (iii) these signals are then received by hybrid coupler 102. Ans. 5. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that Fitzpatrick discloses “a circularly polarized ‘component’ is ‘determined’ in accordance with the definition provided at page 2, line 34 of the instant specification.” Id. Providing a definition pertinent to the configuration of the processor recited in claim 1, Appellant’s Specification states: In particular, the expression “determine the circularly polarized component of the locating signal” is intended to be understood to mean that the computation unit quantizes the two received linear polarization directions of the locating signal separately from one another and calculates the circularly polarized component of the locating signal from the quantized polarization directions of the locating signal. Spec. 5:31–6:2. Thus, the processor recited in claim 1 requires a configuration to quantize two received linear polarization directions of a locating signal separately from one another and calculate a circularly Appeal 2018-007506 Application 14/363,687 6 polarized component of the locating signal from these quantized polarization directions. Appellant’s Specification defines the term “a circularly polarized component of [a] locating signal” as “at least one portion of an energy in the locating signal whose absolute value for an electrical field vector is constant at least at one frequency.” Spec. 2:24–29. As found by the Examiner (Ans. 5), Fitzpatrick discloses receiving circularly polarized reflections using antennas 104, 106 (Fitzpatrick ¶ 29). Fitzpatrick does not explicitly state that antennas 104, 106 receive reflections from at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions, but Fitzpatrick describes antennas 104, 106 as “cross polarized antennas” (which are the same as orthogonal linear polarized antennas4) that receive these reflections. Id. ¶ 26. Assuming for the sake of argument that the signals received by antennas 104, 106 qualify as reflections from at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions, the rejection of claim 1 falls short of establishing that signal processor 406 of Fitzpatrick is configured to determine a circularly polarized component from these reflections. Specifically, Fitzpatrick discusses signal processor 406 only in paragraph 41 and this paragraph does not indicate that signal processor 406 determines a circularly polarized component as this term is defined by Appellant’s Specification. Rather, paragraph 41 of Fitzpatrick merely discloses that signal processor 406 4 Paragraph 8 of Fitzpatrick explains that cross polarized antennas (discussed in paragraph 26) are also known as orthogonal linear polarized antennas. Appeal 2018-007506 Application 14/363,687 7 “further processes receiver 110[5] output signals to enhance detection, and detection logic 408 further operates on the signal processor 406 output to detect an object.” (Emphasis omitted). Nor does Figure 4 of Fitzpatrick, which is described in paragraph 41, shed any light on how the processing performed by signal processor 406 might relate to a “circularly polarized component” as this term is defined by Appellant’s Specification. See Spec. 2:24–29. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 9– 10) that the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Fitzpatrick discloses a processor configured to determine a circularly polarized component from reflected signals received by an antenna from two linear polarization directions. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 5 and 7 depending therefrom as unpatentable over Fitzpatrick, Krapf, and Cole. Claim 12 Independent claim 12 recites a process step of “determining a circularly polarized component of the locating signal received from the at least two orthogonal, linear polarization directions with a processor of a computational unit.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same unsupported finding in Fitzpatrick discussed above to reject claim 12. See Final Act. 3–4. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Fitzpatrick, Krapf, and Cole. 5 As disclosed in Figure 1A of Fitzpatrick, receiver 110 receives a signal from hybrid coupler 102, (the signal originating from antennas 104, 106). Appeal 2018-007506 Application 14/363,687 8 Rejection III Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and the Examiner does not rely on Goggins in any manner that would remedy the deficiency discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 6. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Fitzpatrick, Krapf, Cole, and Goggins. Rejection IV Claim 13 Independent claim 13 recites a processor with the same configuration discussed above regarding claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same unsupported finding in Fitzpatrick discussed with respect to Rejection II to reject claim 13. See Final Act. 6–7. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over Fitzpatrick and Goggins. DECISION We affirm Rejection I. We reverse Rejections II–IV. FINALITY AND RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART