NAVICO HOLDING ASDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 4, 20202020002987 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 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. 14/676,272 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation