NAVICO HOLDING AS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 4, 2020

2020002987 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 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.
14/676,272 04/01/2015 Alan Proctor 48379/09103 8289
27530 7590 12/04/2020
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
IP Department
One Wells Fargo Center
301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
EXAMINER
BAGHDASARYAN, HOVHANNES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2020 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):
ip@nelsonmullins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALAN PROCTOR
____________

Appeal 2020-002987
Application 14/676,272
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES P. CALVE, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 28–32, 34, 3744, 45, and 47–50, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1–27, 33, 35,
36, 46, and 51 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Navico Holdings
AS. (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-002987
Application 14/676,272

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to sonar transducer
assembly for 360 degree imaging of an underwater environment under a
water craft (Spec., para. 1). Claim 28, reproduced below, is representative
of the subject matter on appeal.

28. A sonar system for a water craft, the sonar system
comprising:
a sonar transducer assembly comprising:
a housing mountable to a water craft; and
a plurality of transducer elements positioned within the
housing, wherein the plurality of transducer elements form a
phased array, wherein each of the plurality of transducer
elements are configured to receive respective sonar returns from
one or more
sonar pulses transmitted within the underwater environment and
convert sound energy from the respective sonar returns into
respective sonar return data, wherein the phased array is
configured to beam form multiple beam patterns to generate the
respective sonar
return data, wherein the housing is mountable to the water craft
so as to enable rotation of the at least one transducer element with
respect to the water craft; and
a sonar signal processor configured to:
process the respective sonar return data from the plurality
of transducer elements to produce sonar image data associated
with a 3D image of the underwater environment, and
generate the 3D image based on the sonar image data.

Appeal 2020-002987
Application 14/676,272

3

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 28–32, 34, 37, 39, 40–44, 45, and 47–50 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over DePasqua (US 2012/0014220
A1, Jan. 19, 2012) and Nikolov, et al2.
2. Claims 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over DePasqua, Nikolov, and Thompson et al. (US 5,923,617,
July 13, 1999) (“Thompson”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence3.

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 28 is improper
because the rejection of record fails to provide “articulated reasoning for a
motivation to adapt the distinct sonar systems” cited as prior art (App.
Br. 6). In particular, the Appellant first argues that the rejection is
conclusory, and requires significant changes to combine the references not
accounted for in the rejection (App. Br. 6, 7). The Appellant has not argued
that the cited prior art fails to disclose any limitation, but rather that the

2 Nikolov, S., Dufait, et. al, Three-Dimensional Real-Time Synthetic
Aperture Imaging Using a Rotating Phased Array Transducer, IEEE
Ultrasonics Symposium, pp. 1545–48 (2002). Hereinafter “Nikolov”.
3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2020-002987
Application 14/676,272

4

references are improperly combined and that the combination would not
have been obvious (App. Br. 5–8, Reply Br. 2, 3).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Ans. 3–8).
We agree with the Examiner. DePasqua teaches a sonar transducer
assembly (20) that can be used in a boat and to provide sonar signals (Fig. 3,
para. 18). Nikolov at the abstract discloses using phased arrays and
providing 3D imaging. Here, the modification of the system of DePasqua to
include phased arrays and 3D imaging would have been an obvious
combination of familiar elements for the advantage of providing 3D imaging
with better data acquisition. See Ans. 4–5.
The Appellant has first argued that the rationale to “create real time
3D imaging” is conclusory (App. Br. 6). We disagree, as one of ordinary
skill in the art would clearly see the advantage of using more detailed 3D
imaging as providing an advantage in displaying the data in the cited
combination.
The Appellant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not simply “swap the mechanical phased array sonar of Nikolov” with the
sonar system of DePasqua and that such a change is not addressed (App.
Br. 6). We disagree. Nikolov at the abstract has disclosed that phased
arrays are known in the art to be used and provide beneficial image quality.
To the extent that the Appellant is arguing that bodily incorporation of the
references is an issue, note that “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
Appeal 2020-002987
Application 14/676,272

5

in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). See also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the
inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1973)
(“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.”).
For these above reasons we agree with the Examiners rejection of
claim 1. The Appellant has not provided separate arguments for the
remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is sustained as not argued.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
28–32, 34,
37, 39, 40–
44, 45, 47–
50
103 DePasqua, Nikolov 28–32, 34,
37, 39, 40–
44, 45, 47–
50

36, 38 103 DePasqua,
Nikolov,
Thompson
36, 38
Overall
Outcome
28–32, 34,
36–39, 40–
44, 45, 47–
50

Appeal 2020-002987
Application 14/676,272

6

TIME PERIOD FOR 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