null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 26, 2019

14447889 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 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.
14/447,889 07/31/2014 Russell E. Calvarese 102442US01 4174
126568 7590 11/26/2019
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2019 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte RUSSELL E. CALVARESE and RICHARD J. LAVERY
__________

Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, 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 1–16. Appeal Br. 7. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons explained below, we do
not conclude the Examiner erred in rejecting certain claims. Accordingly,
we AFFIRM IN PART the Examiner’s rejections.

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 “Symbol
Technologies, LLC, a wholly indirectly owned company of Zebra
Technologies Corporation.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates to “[a] pulsed ranging system
[that] can be used to determine the position of a device with respect to pulse
sources at known locations.” Spec. ¶ 1. Independent system claim 1 and
similar independent method claim 11 are illustrative of the claims on appeal
and are reproduced below. Both independent claims contain limitations that
require a condition precedent to first be met, i.e., “wherein if” and “upon.”
1. A system for non-echo pulsed ranging, the system
comprising:
a plurality of emitters at fixed locations within an
environment, the emitters operable to transmit signal pulses of a
predefined frequency; and
a mobile device operable to:
receive at least one of the signal pulses from the
plurality of emitters,
convert the at least one of the signal pulses into a
digital waveform,
store the digital waveform into a buffer having a
predetermined length of time, and
perform a first analysis to analyze the digital
waveform to detect a detected signal pulse at
the predefined frequency;
wherein if the detected signal pulse is detected, the mobile
device is further operable to perform a second analysis to re-
analyze the digital waveform to attempt to detect another signal
pulse at the predefined frequency, a presence of the another
signal pulse indicating an existence of a reflected signal pulse,
and
wherein if the another signal pulse is detected, the mobile
device is further operable to select a selected signal pulse that
was received first in time for use in ranging of the mobile device,
the selected signal pulse being one of the detected signal pulse or
the another signal pulse.

Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

3
11. A method for non-echo pulsed ranging, the method
comprising:
providing a plurality of emitters at fixed locations within
an environment;
transmitting signal pulses of a predefined frequency by the
plurality of emitters;
receiving, by a mobile device, at least one the signal pulses
from the plurality of emitters;
converting the at least one of the signal pulses into a digital
waveform;
storing the digital waveform into a buffer having a
predetermined length of time;
perform a first analysis to analyze the digital waveform to
detect a detected signal pulse at the predefined frequency;
upon detecting the detected signal pulse, performing a
second analysis to re-analyze the digital waveform to attempt to
detect another signal pulse at the predefined frequency, a
presence of the another signal pulse indicating an existence of a
reflected signal pulse, wherein if another signal pulse is detected;
and
upon detecting the another signal pulse, selecting a
selected signal pulse that was received first in time for use in
ranging of the mobile device, the selected signal pulse being one
of the detected signal pulse or the another signal pulse.

REFERENCED RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Van Loenen et al. WO 2004/095056 A1 Nov. 4, 2004
Jörg et al., First Results in Eliminating Crosstalk & Noise by Applying
Pseudo-Random Sequences to Mobile Robot Sonar Sensing,
IEEE/RSJ International Conference, vol. 1 IEEE, 1996.
Borriello et al., WALRUS: Wireless Acoustic Location with Room-
Level Resolution using Ultrasound, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and
Services, ACM, 2005.
Douglas L. Jones, EFFICIENT FFT ALGORITHM AND PROGRAMMING
TRICKS, Connexions, 2007.

Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

4
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–4, 7, 10–12, and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Van Loenen. Final Act. 2.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Van Loenen and Borriello. Final Act. 8.
Claims 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Van Loenen, Borriello, and Jones. Final Act. 9.
Claims 1–7, 10–12, and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Borriello and Jörg. Final Act. 10.
Claims 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Borriello, Jörg, and Jones. Final Act. 15.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 10–12, and 14–16
as anticipated by Van Loenen
MPEP § 2111.04(II), entitled “Contingent Limitations,” states as
follows:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or
process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those
steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are
not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent
are not met. . . . .
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or
apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a
function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is
met, requires structure for performing the function should the
condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a
method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must
be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is
met and the function is actually performed.
Emphasis added. See also Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847
Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

5
(PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential). Because the assessment of
conditional limitations differ between system claims and method claims, we
address system claim 1 (and its dependent claims) separately from method
claim 11 (and its dependent claims).
System claims 1–4, 7, and 10
As noted above, MPEP § 2111.04(II) explains that for a system claim
having a conditional limitation, the claimed structure must be present
regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually
performed. In regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Van Loenen
discloses the recited system comprising a mobile device operable to, if a
detected signal pulse is detected, perform a second analysis to re-analyze the
temporarily stored digital waveform. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Van Loenen
2:20–25, 2:10–3:16, 13:30–34).
Appellant contends that “a close review of the cited text reveals
nothing with regard to performing any type of re-analysis following the
initial analysis.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 1–3. Instead, Appellant
asserts that Van Loenen discloses “the signal received by the object will
include multiple peaks (with some of those peaks being generated as a result
of reflections) arriving at separate times.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply
Br. 2. Thus, in essence, Van Loenen’s system performs a single analysis and
“detects whatever peaks are present (three in case of Fig. 3a)” in real time.
Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2–3; Van Loenen Figs. 3a–3c and the time
scale illustrated therein.
Claim 1 requires a mobile device operable to “receive at least one of
the signal pulses . . ., convert the at least one of the signal pulses into a
digital waveform, store the digital waveform into a buffer . . ., and perform
Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

6
a first analysis to analyze the digital waveform.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claim
App.; emphasis added). Claim 1 continues reciting that if a “signal pulse is
detected, the mobile device is further operable to perform a second analysis
to re-analyze the digital waveform” stored in the aforesaid buffer.
Van Loenen states, “the detected ultrasound signal may comprise a
strong first peak corresponding to the direct transmission,” “a weak first
reflection peak” and “a relatively strong second reflection peak.” Van
Loenen 2:18–20; see also id. Fig. 3a. Van Loenen further states, “[i]f the
same object is positioned in the middle of the room, the second reflection
peak may firstly not be present or at least not so pronounced.” Van Loenen
2:21–23. Thus, Van Loenen discloses analyzing data received in real-time
and performing an analysis of a waveform comprising direct and reflected
signal peaks. See also Van Loenen 2:10–3:16, 13:30–34, Fig. 3a.
In view of the above, it is not made clear how Van Loenen teaches the
re-analysis of a stored waveform. As such, the evidence presented for
review does not support the Examiner’s finding that Van Loenen teaches this
limitation. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has not established
by a preponderance of the evidence that Van Loenen anticipates the system
limitations of claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10.
Method claims 11, 12, and 14–16
Appellant argues claims 11, 12, and 14–16 together. See Appeal Br.
7–10. We select claim 11 for review, with claims 12, and 14–16 standing or
falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
As noted above, MPEP § 2111.04(II) explains that for a method claim
having a conditional limitation, only those steps that must be performed are
Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

7
to be evaluated. Thus, because claim 11 can be practiced without certain
conditions occurring, we do not evaluate those steps which include a
conditional limitation, i.e., the steps of “upon detecting the detected signal
pulse, performing a second analysis to re-analyze the digital waveform . . .,”
and “upon detecting the another signal pulse, selecting a selected signal
pulse . . . .”
In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner identifies where Van Loenen
discloses the remaining steps of (a) “providing a plurality of emitters . . .;”
(b) “transmitting signal pulses . . .;” (c) “receiving, by a mobile device, at
least one [] signal pulse[] . . .;” (d) “converting the at least one . . . signal
pulse[] . . .;” (e) “storing the digital waveform . . .;” and, (f) “perform a first
analysis . . . .” Final Act. 2–4 (citations to Van Loenen omitted).
Appellant does not dispute these findings by the Examiner concerning
these remaining steps. Appeal Br. 7–10. Instead, Appellant contends that
Van Loenen does not disclose the conditional limitation of “performing any
type of re-analysis following the initial analysis.” Appeal Br. 9; see also id.
at 7–10; Reply Br. 1–3. In other words, Appellant addresses a conditional
step that need not be performed, which we need not analyze as explained
above. As such, Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, and 14–16 as being
anticipated by Van Loenen.
The rejection of claims 5 and 6
as unpatentable over Van Loenen and Borriello
System claims 5 and 6 depend indirectly from claim 1. Appeal Br. 13
(Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Borriello for disclosing the use of a
Goertzel algorithm and a higher order filtering operation, and does not rely
Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

8
on Borriello to cure the deficiency of Van Loenen discussed above. Final
Act. 8–9. Thus, the rejection of system claims 5 and 6 as being obvious over
Van Loenen and Borriello is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 8, 9, and 13
as unpatentable over Van Loenen, Borriello, and Jones
Claims 8 and 9
System claims 8 and 9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Jones for disclosing
the use of a Fast Fourier Transform operation and wakeup circuitry, and
does not rely on Jones to cure the deficiency of Van Loenen discussed
above. Final Act. 9–10. Thus, the rejection of system claims 8 and 9 as
being obvious over Van Loenen, Borriello, and Jones is not sustained.
Claim 13
Method claim 13 depends directly from claim 11. Appeal Br. 14
(Claims App.). Appellant does not present arguments for claim 13, but
instead relies on arguments previously presented with respect to claim 11.
See Appeal Br. 7–10. As we do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of
method claim 11, the rejection of claim 13 as being obvious over Van
Loenen, Borriello, and Jones is sustained for the same reasons discussed
above.
The rejection of claims 1–7, 10–12, and 14–16
as unpatentable over Borriello and Jörg
Claims 1–7 and 10
As discussed above, for system claim 1, we consider its conditional
limitations setting forth required structure in our analysis. In regard to claim
1, the Examiner relies on both Borriello and Jörg for disclosing a mobile
Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

9
device. See Final Act. 10, 11. The Examiner specifically relies on Jörg for
disclosing a mobile device that is operable to perform a second analysis to
re-analyze the digital waveform, i.e., a digital waveform that is stored in the
aforesaid buffer. See Final Act. 11 (citing Jörg p. 293). Appellant contends
that Jörg’s “discussion relates to the applications of filters, and lacks any
direct discussion of the claimed subject matter” and that “[i]n essence, there
is no re-analysis of the digital waveform” in Jörg. Appeal Br. 11. The
Examiner responds that “re-analysis is analogous to repeated detection of
peaks” and that Jörg “is attempting to make use of multiple echoes.” Ans.
8–9 (citing Jörg p. 293).
The Examiner’s cited passage of Jörg states that “[m]any of these
approaches are grid-based, i.e. they interpret each individual sonar range
reading by using a specific sonar sensor model, while accepting the first
echo per measurement, only.” Jörg p. 293. We fail to see how it can be said
that this passage discloses “a second analysis to re-analyze the digital
waveform” previously stored as claimed. We thus reject the Examiner’s
determination that “re-analysis is analogous to repeated detection of peaks”
in which Jörg “is attempting to make use of multiple echoes.” Even if Jörg’s
system combines multiple echoes and detects peaks belonging thereto, that is
not the same as performing a second analysis to re-analyze the digital
waveform that is stored in a buffer.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner fails to render a prima
facie case in that the Examiner has not established that the combination of
Borriello and Jörg renders claim 1 obvious. We do not sustain the rejection
of claim 1, and dependent claims 2–7 and 10, as being obvious over
Borriello and Jörg.
Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

10
Claims 11, 12 and 14–16
Appellant argues method claims 11, 12, and 14–16 together. See
Appeal Br. 10–11. We select claim 11 for review, with claims 12, and 14–
16 standing or falling therewith. As discussed above, for method claim 11,
we need not include its conditional limitations in our analysis as they are not
required steps.
The Examiner finds that Borriello discloses a method comprising the
steps of providing a plurality of emitters at fixed locations within an
environment and transmitting signal pulses of a predefined frequency by the
plurality of emitters. Final Act. 10 (citing Borriello Abstr., p. 192, Fig. 4).
The Examiner also finds that Borriello discloses the steps of receiving, by a
mobile device, at least one of the signal pulses from the plurality of emitters
and converting the at least one of the signal pulses into a digital waveform.
Final Act. 10 (citing Borriello Abstr., p. 197). The Examiner further finds
that Borriello discloses the steps of storing the digital waveform into a buffer
having a predetermined length of time and performing a first analysis to
analyze the digital waveform to detect a detected signal pulse at the
predefined frequency. Final Act. 10–11 (citing Borriello Abstr., pp. 191,
197, 199).
Appellant does not contest these findings, except in regard to the
limitation “storing the digital waveform into a buffer having a predetermined
length of time,” Appellant argues that “there is no particular link between
the microphone interface and the limited memory” and “the mere mention of
that memory cannot be equated with the claimed feature.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant submits that “it is unclear to the Applicants whether the Office
Action is relying on an inherency argument, whether the Office Action is
Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

11
taking official notice, or whether there is some other basis for making the
alleged claim.” Appeal Br. 10–11.
The Examiner responds that Borriello discloses “using a ‘digital
signal processing algorithm . . . similar to a narrow bandpass filter . . .
Goertzel algorithm . . .’ (Pg. 197) on a ‘PDA carried by a user’ (Abstract)
(i.e., a handheld computer)” and that “[c]learly[,] digital signals must be
stored somewhere (i.e., memory) so that digital signal processing algorithms
may be performed on the same signals.” Ans. 8.2
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s response. See Reply Br. 4.
Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error.
For these reasons, the rejection of method claims 11, 12, and 14–16 as
being obvious over Borriello and Jörg is sustained.
The rejection of claims 8, 9, and 13
as unpatentable over Borriello, Jörg, and Jones
Claims 8 and 9
System claims 8 and 9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Jones for disclosing
using a Fast Fourier Transform operation and using wakeup circuitry, and
does not rely on Jones to cure the deficiency of Borriello and Jörg discussed

2 We note that Appellant also discloses that a Goertzel algorithm is used.
See Spec. ¶ 22.
Appeal 2019-003361
Application 14/447,889

12
above. Final Act. 15. Thus, the rejection of system claims 8 and 9 as being
obvious over Borriello, Jörg, and Jones is not sustained.
Claim 13
Method claim 13 depends directly from claim 11. Appeal Br. 14
(Claims App.). Appellant does not present arguments for claim 13 and
instead relies on arguments previously presented with respect to claim 11.
Appeal Br. 10–11. As we do not find error in the rejection of claim 11, the
rejection of claim 13 as being obvious over Borriello, Jörg, and Jones is
sustained for the same reasons discussed above.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7,
10–12,
14–16
102 Van Loenen 11, 12,
14–16
1–4, 7, 10
5, 6 103 Van Loenen, Borriello 5, 6
8, 9, 13 103 Van Loenen, Borriello,
Jones
13 8, 9
1–7, 10–
12, 14–16
103 Borriello, Jörg 11, 12,
14–16
1–7, 10
8, 9, 13 103 Borriello, Jörg, Jones 13 8, 9
Overall
Outcome
11–16 1–10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED IN PART