BAE SYSTEMS plcDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 20212020003436 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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. 15/999,355 08/17/2018 LESLIE CHARLES LAYCOCK BAE.XA4944US 3887 121361 7590 12/29/2021 BAE-UK / Finch & Maloney Gateway One 50 Commercial, Suite 300 Manchester, NH 03101 EXAMINER SANCHEZ, DIBSON J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2021 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): docketing@finchmaloney.com nmaloney@finchmaloney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte LESLIE CHARLES LAYCOCK and MICHAEL STEWART GRIFFITH ________________ Appeal 2020-003436 Application 15/999,355 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, 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 1–4, 6–12, 15, and 17–22. Claims 5 and 16 are canceled. Appeal Br. 17, 20 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that claims 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies BAE SYSTEMS plc as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003436 Application 15/999,355 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to optical sensing and optical communications systems. Spec. 1. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Amir US 9,306,665 B1 Apr. 5, 2016 Yazaki US 2006/0062099 A1 Mar. 23, 2006 Ann US 2008/0166135 A1 July 10, 2008 Chou US 2010/0142972 A1 June 10, 2010 Damink US 2011/0076024 A1 Mar. 31, 2011 Kubo US 2016/0231547 A1 Aug. 11, 2016 Albert US 2016/0327639 A1 Nov. 10, 2016 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6–12, 15, and 17–22 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 15, 21, 22 103 Ann, Chou Final Act. 3–10 2, 3, 17 103 Ann, Chou, Kubo Final Act. 10–14 7 103 Ann, Chou, Damink Final Act. 14–15 10, 11 103 Ann, Chou, Albert Final Act. 16–18 12 103 Ann, Chou, Amir Final Act. 15–16 18–20 103 Ann, Chou, Yazaki Final Act. 18–19 Appeal 2020-003436 Application 15/999,355 3 ANALYSIS Claim 1, which is illustrative with respect to claims 1–4, 6–12, 15, and 17–22, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized). 1. An optical system comprising: a transmitter module configured to transmit a sequence of optical pulses, wherein the transmitted sequence of optical pulses is a sequence of optical pulses having decreasing magnitudes; a receiver module comprising one or more optical signal detectors, the receiver module configured to receive the sequence of optical pulses transmitted by the transmitter module; and one or more processors configured to process the sequence of optical pulses received by the receiver module to select an optical pulse from the received sequence of optical pulses based on one or more predetermined criteria; wherein the one or more predetermined criteria include a criterion that the selected optical pulse does not saturate the one or more optical signal detectors. Final Act. 17 (Claims App.). Claim 1 recites a transmitter module configured to transmit, a receiver module configured to receive, and one or more processors configured to process a sequence of optical pulses. The Specification illustrates an example of a series of optical pulses in Figure 3, which is reproduced below. Appeal 2020-003436 Application 15/999,355 4 The Specification’s Figure 3 illustrates a sequence of transmitted optical pulses. Spec. 5. The pulses are illustrated as a series of thin lines, spaced out sparsely. The height of each line indicates pulse intensity, with the pulses, which are ordered from first pulse to last pulse, decreasing in intensity. Spec. 7–8. The Examiner finds that Ann’s indication light teaches or suggest the claimed optical pulses. Final Act. 3 (citing Ann ¶¶ 25–27, Figs. 3–4). In particular, the Examiner finds that Ann’s Figure 4 illustrates the claimed pulses. Ans. 5. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Ann’s Figure 4. The Examiner’s annotated version of Ann’s Figure 4 is reproduced below. Appeal 2020-003436 Application 15/999,355 5 The Examiner’s annotated version of Ann’s Figure 4 illustrates the “power levels according to length of time of [an] indication light formed by an indication light forming unit.” Ann ¶ 28. Each power level is illustrated by a vertical bar that abuts with the adjacent power level bars, with the bars ordered chronologically from left to right. The Examiner identifies the first sixteen bars as a “sequence of optical pulses,” with the first bar labeled as the “first optical pulse” and the sixteenth bar labeled as the “last optical pulse.” The Examiner does not rely on the other power level bars illustrated in Ann’s Figure 4. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because rather than teaching a sequence of optical pulses, Ann teaches “a visible light signal that has its power level adjusted to cause visible flickering of a continuous light source.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, the claimed optical pulses each refer to “an optical signal having non-zero optical power for a relatively short or brief time duration, and having close to zero optical power at all other times.” Id. In response, the Examiner finds the “concept of combining pulses into a group of continuous pulses is well-known in the art.” Ans. 5. In support of this finding, the Examiner newly cites Wu (US 2012/0120723 A1; May 17, 2012). Id. (citing Wu ¶ 52). In particular, the Examiner reproduces and annotates Wu Figure 6(a), which illustrates a sequence of pulses as a series of bars similar to the bars shown in Ann’s Figure 4. The Examiner’s reliance on Wu to show that the claimed “sequence of optical pulses” encompasses Ann’s continuously (but decreasingly) powered indication light does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness because Appeal 2020-003436 Application 15/999,355 6 the Examiner does not show that Ann teaches or suggests a “sequence of optical pulses” given the limitation’s broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. As Appellant correctly notes, Wu is not even related to optical pulses. Reply Br. 4. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not show that Ann teaches or suggests the claimed “sequence of optical pulses.” The Examiner does not show that the other cited references cure the noted deficiency of Ann. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2–4, 6–12, 15, and 17–22, which contain similar recitations. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 15, 21, 22 103 Ann, Chou 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 15, 21, 22 2, 3, 17 103 Ann, Chou, Kubo 2, 3, 17 7 103 Ann, Chou, Damink 7 10, 11 103 Ann, Chou, Albert 10, 11 12 103 Ann, Chou, Amir 12 18–20 103 Ann, Chou, Yazaki 18–20 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–12, 15, 17–22 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation