Navico Holding ASDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 24, 20212020006215 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2021) 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. 14/945,288 11/18/2015 Matthew Laster 48379/09054 1006 27530 7590 05/24/2021 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP IP Department One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2300 301 South College Street Charlotte, NC 28202 EXAMINER ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2021 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): ip@nelsonmullins.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MATTHEW LASTER ____________ Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 12–17, and 19–23, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over Maguire,2 Brown,3 and Havins.4,5 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Navico Holding AS as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 US 2012/0106300 A1; published May 3, 2012. 3 US 2016/0018516 A1; published January 21, 2016. 4 US 4,982,924; issued January 8, 1991. 5 We consider the omission of claim 4 in the summary of the rejections as stated in the Final Office Action a typographical error, as the Examiner Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 2 We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to “Transducer Elements at Different Tilt Angles.” Spec. Title. Claims 1, 10, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A sonar system for use with a vessel on a body of water, the sonar system comprising: a sonar module configured to generate a transmit signal and receive sonar data; a transducer array configured to be mounted to the vessel, wherein the transducer array is in communication with the sonar module and comprises a plurality of transducer elements configured to provide sonar data to the sonar module, wherein a first transducer element of the plurality of transducer elements comprises an emitting face that is directed outwardly from a side of the vessel in a first direction and at a first angle with respect to a surface of the body of water, wherein a second transducer element of the plurality of transducer elements comprises an emitting face that is directed outwardly from the same side of the vessel in a second direction and at a second angle with respect to the surface of the body of water, wherein the second angle is different than the first angle, and wherein the first direction is non-parallel with the second direction so as to form a tilt angle therebetween such that sonar returns received by the first transducer element provide a different perspective of a same volume of the body of water than sonar returns received by the second transducer element; and a marine electronics device configured to selectively receive sonar data from one or the other of the first transducer element and the second transducer element corresponding to the provides findings relative to claim 4 in the Final Office Action itself. Final Act. 1, 7. Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 3 same volume of the body of water, wherein selection of the first transducer element or the second transducer element enables toggling between an outward side scan beam and a downward side scan beam from the same side of the vessel, wherein the marine electronics device is configured to produce a sonar image corresponding to received sonar data from the selected one of the first transducer element or the second transducer element such that sonar data from the first transducer element would produce a first sonar image corresponding to the outward side scan beam and that sonar data from the second transducer element would produce a separate second sonar image corresponding to the downward side scan beam. OPINION Independent claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 21 Appellant argues claims 1and 10 as a group. Appeal Br. 7–10. We select claim 1 as representative and claim 10 stands or falls therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Maguire discloses, inter alia, a transducer array (“#36”) “for mounting to a surface watercraft,” including “a rectangular first transducer [element] configured to produce a first beam defining a fan-shape and extending generally in a first plane” and “a rectangular second transducer [element] configured to produce a second beam defining a fan-shape and extending generally in a second plane,” wherein the first and second transducer elements comprise emitting faces directed outwardly from sides of the vessel at first and second tilt angles with respect to the body of water.” Final Act. 3 (citing Maguire Abstract, ¶ 7, Fig. 5); see also Maguire Fig. 8A. Figure 8A is reproduced below. Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 4 Figure 8A of Maguire depicts the arrangement of the linear transducer elements 60 [of transducer array 36 within housing 50 defining] the containment volume 54. . . , which may include a port side element 62 positioned to scan substantially to the port side of the vessel, a starboard side element 64 positioned to scan substantially to the starboard side of the vessel, and a downscan element 66 positioned to scan substantially below the vessel. Maguire ¶ 62; see also id. ¶ 58. The Examiner also finds that Maguire discloses, in the “Background of the Invention” section, conventional transducer arrays with first and second transducer elements directed outwardly from the same side of the vessel and also at different angles with respect to the surface of the body of water. Id. at 3–4 (citing Maguire’s transducer elements 10, as depicted in Figure 1, and the ceramic sidescan transducer elements disclosed in Maguire’s paragraph 9). The Examiner further finds that “Maguire teaches both sidescan images [(Maguire ¶ 32 (referencing Fig. 11B))] and downscan images [(id. ¶ 33 (referencing Fig. 11C))], as well as one or more of the displays [(id. Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 5 ¶ 53)]. Ans. 4 (emphasis added); see also Fig. 5 (depicting transducer array 36 in communication with three displays 38). The Examiner also finds that Maguire discloses that “image processor 158 may perform a variety of functions to optimize or customize the display images, including such features as split screen to show multiple different sonar images or data.” Final Act. 4 (citing Maguire ¶ 74). Indeed, paragraph 74 of Maguire discloses, with respect to an embodiment that incorporates linear and circular downscan transducers 140, 142, that image processor 158 may perform a variety of functions to optimize or customize the display images, including such features as split screen to show multiple different sonar images or data. . . . Still further examples include composite images that combine information from one or more . . . sources, such as the images from the linear downstream and circular downstream transducers to overlay the images. . . . Still further, one image may be colorized to distinguish it visibly from data representing another image. As such, for example, the images may be combined using image blending or overlay techniques. Alternatively, individual images may be presented, or different images, simultaneously on different displays without overlay. Maguire ¶ 74 (emphasis added). The Examiner relies on Brown for disclosing a marine electronics device configured to selectively receive sonar data from one or the other of the first and second transducer elements, for example, the transducer elements of Brown’s transducer arrays 32, 36, and enable toggling between outward and downward side scan beams, as claimed. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Brown ¶ 41). The Examiner also finds that Brown teaches, generally, that “[a]dditional or alternative modes may be employed to generate and display sonar images in any configuration or orientation with respect to the marine vessel---e.g., rear, forward, side, down, and/or any other directional Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 6 orientations.” Id. at 5 (citing Brown ¶ 25). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to combine the angled transducers of Maguire, with the multiplexing circuits of Brown so that ‘[Maguire’s] image processor 158 may perform a variety of functions to optimize or customize the display images, including such features as split screen to show multiple different sonar images or data.’” Id. (citing Maguire ¶ 74). The Examiner further relies on Havins for disclosing emitting faces of first and second transducer elements that are directed outwardly in different, non-parallel directions, such that a tilt angle is formed between the transducer elements, as claimed. Final Act. 6. In particular, the Examiner finds that Havins discloses transducer elements 187A, 187B, 187C “pointed in different, yet adjacent directions” and producing “beams hav[ing] some overlap,” wherein the transducer elements are “connected to three display screens having a positional arrangement that corresponds to the transducers.” Final Act. 6 (citing Havins 10:20–35; Fig. 13). Figures 13 and 14 of Havins are reproduced below. Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 7 Figures 13 and 14 of Havins depict “three transducers 187A, 187B, 187C . . . linearly arranged such that there is a center transducer 187A and two lateral transducers 187B, 187C,” wherein “[t]he transducers are connected to three display screens having a positional arrangement that corresponds to the transducers.” Havins 10:14–32. The Examiner reasons that “it would have been obvious to substitute the fanned out transducers of Maguire with the neighboring and angled transducers of Havins so that as a target/fish moves across the left/center/right transducer field of view the movement may be displayed on separate corresponding screens,” as taught in Havins. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Havins 10:20–50) (emphasis added). In support of the Examiner’s rationale, Havins expressly teaches that connecting the transducer elements to different display screens is advantageous: With conventional apparatuses, where only one transducer is utilized, movement of the target off of the single screen often results in losing the target, because of uncertainty as to the direction of movement. With the apparatus of the present invention however, movement of the target off the center scree 229A results in the target showing up on one of the lateral display screens 229B, 229C, thereby providing directional information. Havins 10:41–49. Thus, we understand that the Examiner proposes modifying Maguire’s sonar system by substituting transducer array #36 including transducer elements 60 (and specifically, port side element 62, starboard side element 64, and downscan element 66) with Havin’s transducer array including neighboring, angled left/center/right transducer elements 187A, 187B, 187C (i.e., at tilt angles ϴ relative to one another), wherein at least first and second ones of the left/center/right transducer elements have emitting faces that are Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 8 at different angles with respect to the surface of the body of water, as taught in Maguire,6 and wherein the resulting transducer array of left/center/right transducer elements are directed outwardly from the same side of the vessel, as required by claim 1.7 Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings with respect to Maguire’s transducer array 36, Maguire’s conventional transducer arrays, or Havin’s transducer elements 187A, 187B, 187C, or question how the Examiner is proposing to modify Maguire, in view of Havins. Appeal Br. 7–10. Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s combination of Maguire and Brown is improper and, thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). In support, Appellant submits that, in Maguire, each conical element 10 of the array is needed to create the fan-shaped beam coverage, such that “one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the goal of the array of FIG. 1 was to form a single image and, thus, there would be no motivation to adapt the 6 See also Havins 6:26 (disclosing the desirability of adjusting the orientation of a sonar beam from about parallel to and just below the water’s surface to a directly downward direction, and every intermediate elevation therebetween). 7 In view of the Examiner’s reference to “fanned out transducers” in the Examiner’s reasoning, we are sympathetic to confusion as to whether the Examiner is modifying the conventional array depicted as prior art in Maguire’s Figure 1, which is described in Maguire as producing “a continuous fan shaped beam pattern” (Maguire ¶ 7), or Maguire’s transducer array 36, referred to in the Abstract as relied on by the Examiner and the subject of Maguire’s invention, which is described as having first and second transducers producing first and second beams “defining a fan-shape and extending generally in first [and second] plane[s].” Id., Abstract. However, in the context of the rejection, we understand that the Examiner is modifying Maguire’s transducer array 36. Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 9 teachings as required by the Examiner’s rejection.” Id. (citing Maguire Fig. 7) (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2 (“[t]here is no teaching or motivation to break up [Maguire’s] beams to form different images”). In other words, Appellant submits that the Examiner’s proposed modification would change the principle of operation of Maguire, because one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the standard sonar array of Maguire is taught in Maguire to show one contiguous image from the left to right side of the boat so as to mimic a fan-shaped beam. Thus, breaking apart the image would go against the very goal of the standard array to form that fan- shaped beam. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Maguire ¶ 7, MPEP § 2143.01(v)). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As set forth supra, The Examiner refers to Maguire’s Figure 1, which depicts transducer elements 10 arrayed in an arc to produce a continuous fan shaped beam pattern (see Maguire ¶ 7), as evidence that it is conventional to position different transducer elements of a transducer array at different angles with respect to the surface of a body of water; however, the Examiner does not rely on Maguire’s Figure 1 for disclosing the first and second transducer elements themselves. Rather, as set forth supra, the Examiner relies on Maguire’s disclosure of transducer array 36 with transducer elements 60 that produce different images (i.e., from port and starboard side elements 62, 64 sonar data), which the Examiner further substitutes with Havin’s transducer array, wherein transducer elements 187A, 187B, 187C also produce sonar data for display on three different screens. In other words, the Examiner’s reliance on the prior art does not involve an embodiment necessitating one continuous image generated from the left to right side of the boat so as to mimic a fan-shaped beam as Appellant contends. Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 10 Appellant also argues that “the multiplexer of Brown was taught for an entirely different sonar system.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Brown ¶¶ 25, 41). Appellant submits that the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Maguire, in view of Brown, lacks rationale, because “the stated motivation has nothing to do with changing the standard array of Maguire and, instead, is about choosing which available images to display (e.g., downscan image, sidescan image, etc.) and how to display them (e.g., split screen mode).” Appeal Br. 9. Again, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner is not relying on Brown’s sonar system, except for teaching a marine electronics device configured to toggle between transducer elements. As set forth supra, the configuration of the transducer elements and resulting sonar data is derived from the Examiner’s combination of Maguire and Havins. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claim 10 falls therewith. Appellant chose not to present arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 21 apart from the arguments presented for claims 1 and 10 from which they depend, and therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 21 for essentially the same reasons as set forth supra. Appeal Br. 20. Dependent claims 8 and 22 Claim 8 depends from independent claim 1 and recites, in relevant part, wherein the side of the vessel comprises a left side of the vessel and the plurality of transducer elements comprises a plurality of left transducer elements, wherein the first transducer element comprises a first left transducer element and the second Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 11 transducer element comprises a second left transduce element; and wherein the transducer array further comprise a plurality of right transducer elements configured to provide sonar data to the sonar module, wherein a first right transducer element of the plurality of right transducer elements comprises an emitting face that is directed outwardly form a right side of the vessel in a third direction and at the first angle with respect to the body of water; and wherein a second right transducer element of the plurality of right transducer elements comprises an emitting face that is directed outwardly from the right side of the vessel in a fourth direction and at the second angle with respect to the body of water, wherein the third direction is non-parallel with the fourth direction so as to form the tilt angle therebetween such that sonar returns received by the first right transducer element provide a different perspective of a same volume of the body of water off the right side of the vessel than sonar returns received by the second right transducer element, wherein the marine electronics device is configured to selectively receive sonar data from either of the first left transducer element and the first right transducer element or the second left transducer element and the second right transducer element, wherein selection of the first left transducer element and the first right transducer element or the second left transducer element and the second right transducer element enables toggling between outward side scan beams from both sides of the vessel and downward side scan beams from the both [sic] sides of the vessel, wherein the marine electronics device is configured to produce the sonar image corresponding to received sonar data from the selected one of the first left transducer element and the first right transducer element or the second left transducer element and the second right transducer element such that sonar data from the first left transducer element and the first right transducer element would produce the first sonar image such that first sonar image corresponds to the outward side scan beams from the both sides of the vessel and that sonar data from the second left transducer element and the second right transducer element would produce the separate second sonar Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 12 image such that the second sonar image corresponds to the downward side scan beams from the both sides of the vessel. Appeal Br. 22–23 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). As an initial matter, regarding the production of a single first sonar image and a separate single second image, which are each produced from sonar data from two (left and right) transducer elements generating sonar data from right and left sides of the vessel, it is not altogether clear from the Specification how this is accomplished. In particular, the Specification merely discloses that “[i]n another implementation, two left elements and two right elements may be disposed in the same transducer, and the user has the ability to select views that look further out or further down by selecting a pair of elements (left and right) set at a particular angle,” wherein “the user has the ability to toggle by switching between the different views . . . using a multi-functional display (MFD) device.” Spec. ¶ 51; cf. Maguire ¶ 74; Brown ¶ 73 (“the processing element 26 may calculate two sets of sonar data and may generate two sonar images 44 to be shown on the display”), Fig. 13. The Examiner relies on the findings and reasoning “similar to that of claim 1,” and further relies on Maguire’s Figure 1 for depicting “seven total transducers either arranged downward or left/right pointing in different directions.” Final Act. 8. In view of the Examiner’s findings and reasoning as set forth supra relative to claim 1, we understand that the Examiner uses Maguire’s Figure 1 to teach transducer arrays on left and right sides of a vessel, and thus, that one of Havin’s transducer arrays having first and second left transducer elements may be arranged on the left side of Maguire’s vessel, and one of Havin’s transducer arrays having first and second right transducer elements may be arranged on the right side of Maguire’s vessel. Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 13 The Examiner also finds that Brown teaches that switching/multiplexing circuits may be used to establish desired connections between a first transducer array, second transducer array, beam transmitter, and beam receiver. Brown also teaches rear, forward, side, down, and/or any other direction orientations for sonar display mode views [(citing ¶ 25)], as well as multiple sonar display devices [(citing ¶ 23)], and multiple display images [(citing ¶ 24)]. Finally, Brown teaches that images on the left and right side of the display correspond to those sides of the vessel (port or starboard) [(citing ¶ 60)]. In summary, the art appears to be teaching that multiple images may be switched to multiple sonar displays (the switching is achieved by multiplexers which are well known in the art of electrical engineering). Ans. 9–10 (findings with respect to similar limitations recited in claim 14). We understand that the Examiner’s reasoning is that the particular selection of the pairs of transducer elements to provide outward and side beam scan images, as recited in claim 8, is within the capability of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Brown’s broader teaching regarding the ability to select (or toggle between) different beam scan modes (i.e., a side or outward beam scan mode and a downward mode) and the configuration of transducer elements producing side or outward and downward sonar data resulting from the Examiner’s modification of Maguire, in view of Havins. Appellant argues that claim 8 requires that “a user can toggle between (a) using a first pair of elements (the first left and first right transducer elements) to form a first sidescan image or (b) using a second pair of elements (the second left and second right transducer elements) to form a second sidescan image,” and that “[t]here is no cited art in the Final Office Action to such a claimed feature.” Appeal Br. 18. In particular, Appellant submits that “[t]here is no such teaching in Maguire to form such paired Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 14 transducers into the claimed optional images created,” and further, “even the addition of the multiplexer of Brown . . . does not teach or suggest such a specific transducer set-up.” Id. at 19. In sum, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings relative to Brown still fail to disclose “the specific structure and positioning of the transducer elements (including in paired form) to form the claimed images.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s argument addresses each of the references individually, requiring a disclosure of all of the limitations relative to the claim language recited by Appellant supra from a single prior art reference.8 As such, Appellant’s argument does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, which relies on a combination of the teachings from the references, as well as the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, to arrive at the claimed invention. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 8, and claim 22 depending therefrom. 8 Notably, Brown does suggest a selection of a pairing of starboard side and port side sonar elements for the display of the two sets of sonar data on a single screen, albeit not presented as a single image as suggested in Maguire. Brown ¶ 73, Fig. 13; Maguire ¶ 74. Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 15 Independent claim 14 Independent claim 14 recites, in relevant part, [a] sonar system for use with a vessel on a body of water, the sonar system comprising: a sonar module configured to generate a transmit signal and receive sonar data; and a transducer array configured to be mounted to the vessel, wherein the transducer array is in communication with the sonar module and comprises a plurality of right transducer elements and a plurality of left transducer elements that are each configured to provide sonar data to the sonar module, wherein the plurality of left transducer elements comprises a first left transducer element that comprises an emitting face that is directed outward and away from a left side of the vessel in a first direction and at a first angle with respect to a surface of the body of water, wherein the plurality of left transducer elements comprises a second left transducer element that comprises an emitting face that is directed outward and away from the left side of the vessel in a second direction and at a second angle with respect to the surface of the body of water, wherein the plurality of right transducer elements comprises a first right transducer element that comprises an emitting face that is directed outward and away from a right side of the vessel in a third direction and at the first angle with respect to the surface of the body of water, wherein the plurality of right transducer elements comprises a second right transducer element that comprises an emitting face that is directed outward and away from the right side of the vessel in a fourth direction and at the second angle with respect to the surface of the body of water, wherein the second angle is different than the first angle, wherein the first direction is non- parallel with the second direction so as to form a tilt angle therebetween such that sonar returns received by the first transducer element provide a different perspective of a same volume of the body of water off the left side of the vessel than sonar returns received by the second transducer element, and wherein the third direction is non-parallel with the fourth direction so as to form the tilt angle therebetween such that sonar Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 16 returns received by the first right transducer element provide a different perspective of a same volume of the body of water off the right side of the vessel than sonar returns received by the second right transducer element; wherein selection between sonar data of either of both the first left transducer element and the first right transducer element or both the second left transducer element and the second right transducer element enables toggling between outward side scan beams from both sides of the vessel and downward side scan beams from the both sides of the vessel, wherein the received sonar data from the selected one of both the first left transducer element and the first right transducer element or both the second left transducer element and the second right transducer element is utilized to provide a sonar image such that sonar data form both the first left transducer element and the first right transducer element produces a first sonar image corresponding to the outward side scan beams from the both sides of the vessel and that sonar data from both the second left transducer element and the second right transducer element produces a separate second sonar image corresponding to the downward side scan beams from the both sides of the vessel. Appeal Br. 24–26 (emphasis added). The Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning in the rejection of claim 14 as relied on in the rejection of claims 1 and 8 supra, and Appellant presents the same arguments with respect to the patentability of claim 14 as presented for the patentability of claims 1 and 8 supra. Final Act. 7; Appeal Br. 10–16; Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons as stated with respect to claims 1 and 8, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14, and claims 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 depending therefrom. Appeal 2020-006215 Application 14/945,288 17 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 12–17, 19–23 103 Maguire, Brown, Havins 1, 3, 4, 6– 10, 12–17, 19–23 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation