David L. Juzswik

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2020

14295824 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
14/295,824 06/04/2014 David L. Juzswik TE-022233 US ORD 9930
26294 7590 03/02/2020
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
BILODEAU, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2020 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):
docketing@tarolli.com
rkline@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID L. JUZSWIK
____________

Appeal 2018-003491
Application 14/295,824
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–25, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states that it believes the real party in interest is
TRW Automotive U.S. LLC. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2018-003491
Application 14/295,824

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a
measuring circuit for measuring the strength of a low frequency
electromagnetic signal received by an antenna which is corrected in
accordance with a representation, stored in memory, of noise in the output of
the measurement circuit. (Abstr.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. Apparatus comprising:
at least one antenna for receiving a low frequency
electromagnetic field,
a measuring circuit connected to said at least one antenna
for measuring strength of a low frequency electromagnetic
signal received by said antenna,
a memory for storing a correction factor representative of
noise that is inherent to the measuring circuit, and
a corrector for correcting a measurement provided by the
measuring circuit in accordance with said correction factor to
remove from the measurement the noise inherent to the
measuring circuit.
(Appeal Br. 18 (Appendix A).)

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 8–9, 10, and 13–17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Nakajima et al. (US 2010/0201483 A1,
pub. Aug. 12, 2010). (Final Act. 5–6.)
The Examiner rejected claims 2–3, 5–7, 11–12, and 18–25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima and Juzswik (US
2010/0191392 A1, pub. July 29, 2010). (Final Act. 6–8.)
Appeal 2018-003491
Application 14/295,824

3

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 8, 9, and 13–25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2014/0320262 A1, pub. Oct. 30,
2014) and Lickfelt (US 2013/0069760 A1, pub. Mar. 21, 2013). (Final Act.
9–10.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments present the following issues:2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Nakajima disclosed
the independent claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 requirements of “noise that is inherent
to the measuring circuit.” (Appeal Br. 4–9.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Park and Lickfelt taught or suggested the limitations in independent claims
1, 4, 8, and 9 requirements of “noise that is inherent to the measuring
circuit.” (Appeal Br. 11–15.)
ANALYSIS
Issue One
For the claim requirement at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure in Nakajima of a measurement of the signal strength of a signal
that is received at a mobile-device control unit when the transmitting
antennas of the vehicle are not transmitting output signals, which
measurement corresponds “to only a noise element.” (Final Act. 5;
Nakajima Fig. 3, ¶¶ 22, 30.)

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 13, 2017) (“Appeal
Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Feb. 14, 2018) (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office
Action (mailed May 5, 2017) (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed Dec. 15, 2017) (“Ans.”) for the respective details.
Appeal 2018-003491
Application 14/295,824

4

Appellant argues the noise measurement of Nakajima is a
measurement of ambient noise, not “noise that is inherent to the measuring
circuit,” as required by the claims. (Appeal Br. 6.)
The Examiner argues that “inherent” in the claims is not defined, and
that the stored noise measurement of Nakajima is within the scope of the
claims. (Ans. 3–4.) However, as Appellant argues, the claims explicitly
require that the noise is “inherent to the measuring circuit.” (Reply Br. 2.)
The Specification confirms, “[a] memory stores a representation of the
inherent noise in the output of the measurement circuit.” (Spec. 2:27–28.)
The Specification explains that the compensation factor based on this
inherent noise is “calculated once, during the fob manufacturing process.”
(Id. at 8:6–7.)
We find a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant’s
contention that Nakajima does not disclose the claim requirement at issue.
See Appeal Br. 6. Turning to the evidence cited by the Examiner, we find
Nakajima does not disclose storing a correction factor representative of
noise that is inherent to the measuring circuit, or correcting measurement
based on that factor. See Nakajima ¶¶ 22, 30. Rather, we find Nakajima uses
measured ambient noise as a correction factor:
The mobile-device control unit 22 is periodically
activated. The mobile-device control unit 22 measures the
signal strength of a signal that is received in a state in which the
transmitting antennas ANT1 to ANT3 of the vehicle 1 do not
output transmission signals, and acquires received signal
strength indictor (RSSI) values corresponding to only a noise
element.
Nakajima ¶ 22 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2018-003491
Application 14/295,824

5

As illustrated in FIG. 3, each of the RSSI values that are
calculated using the signal strengths of the received
transmission signals for measuring RSSI values includes the
noise element, and the amount of noise in the noise element
depends on the surrounding environment. In the present
embodiment, the noise element measured in advance is read
from the memory 24, correction in which the noise element is
removed from the individual RSSI values is added, and the
distances to the individual transmitting antennas ANT1 to
ANT3 are calculated.
Nakajima ¶ 30 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of independent claims 1, 4, 8, and 9. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejections of claims 10 and 13–17, and the obviousness
rejections of claims 2–3, 5–7, 11–12, and 18–25 over Nakajima and Juzswik,
which claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 4, 8, or 9,
because the Examiner has not shown on this record that Juzswik overcomes
the aforementioned deficiencies found in Nakajima.
Issue Two
In finding the Park and Lickfelt taught or suggested the claim
requirements, “noise that is inherent to the measuring circuit,” the Examiner
solely relies on the disclosure in Park of comparing a measurement of noise
detected in a “zone having strong RF noise” with a threshold value to
determine whether a key fob is correctly detected. (Final Act. 9; Park
Abstr., Fig. 4A, ¶¶ 8, 51–52.)
As argued by Appellant, “Park therefore suffers from the same
deficiency as Nakajima in that Park also detects the environmental noise in
the RF signals received by the fob . . . not noise inherent to any measuring
circuit of Park.” (Appeal Br. 12.) We agree with Appellant for the same
Appeal 2018-003491
Application 14/295,824

6

reasons as discussed above. Park measures “intensity of RF noise, which is
detected in a zone having strong RF noise,” not “noise that is inherent to the
measuring circuit,” as required by the claims. (Park ¶ 8.) Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, and
13–25 over Park and Lickfelt.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 8–9, 10,
13–17
102(a)(2) Nakajima 1, 4, 8–9, 10,
13–17
2–3, 5–7, 11–
12, 18–25
103 Nakajima, Juzswik 2–3, 5–7, 11–
12, 18–25
1, 4, 8, 9, 13–25 103 Park, Lickfelt 1, 4, 8, 9, 13–25
Overall
Outcome
1–25