Ex Parte AlpertDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201612088385 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) 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. 12/088,385 06/03/2008 Ortal Alpert 29316-0002US1 / 80326-ORT 1648 26211 7590 12/27/2016 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (NY) P.O. BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2637 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ORTAL ALPERT Appeal 2016-000036 Application 12/088,3851 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN D. HAMANN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21— 23, 25, 27-31, 33-37, 40, 41, 43^6, 51-53, and 71-74. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “the wireless transmission of power and data to a remote, low power device over free space.” Spec. 1. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Wi-Charge Ltd. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-000036 Application 12/088,385 Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A system for transmitting power wirelessly to a remote device disposed in a space, comprising: a transmitting unit comprising a gain medium having a front surface adapted to emit radiation generally towards said space, and a rear surface having a retro-reflector in optical association therewith, the distance between any two opposing points on opposite edges of said front surface of the gain medium being more than the distance between said front and rear surfaces, such that said radiation can be amplified by said gain medium and emitted from said front surface over a wide range of angles; and a receiver unit associated with said device and adapted to receive said radiation transmitted from said transmitting unit, and comprising a retro-reflector adapted to retro reflect a first portion of said radiation received from said transmitting unit back in the direction of said transmitting unit, such that said transmitting unit amplifies said radiation reflected back from said receiver unit and retransmits it in the direction of said receiver unit, and adapted to transmit a second portion of said radiation, such that it is utilized by said device. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21-23, 25, 29-31, 33-35, 43, 44, 46, 51-53, and 71-74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Linford et al. (US 4,209,689; issued June 24, 1980) (hereinafter “Linford”) and Hunt et al. (US 7,085,303 B2; issued Aug. 1, 2006) (hereinafter “Hunt”). (2) The Examiner rejected claims 19, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Linford, Hunt, and Eichweber (US 4,143,263; issued Mar. 6, 1979). 2 Appeal 2016-000036 Application 12/088,385 (3) The Examiner rejected claims 27, 28, 40, 41, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Linford, Hunt, and O’Brien et al. (US 6,721,539 Bl; issued Apr. 13, 2004) (hereinafter “O’Brien”). DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether combining Hunt’s teaching of a disk gain medium with Linford’s teachings would make Linford unsuitable for its intended purpose, and thus, would be error. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner improperly combines (i) Hunt’s teaching of a disk gain medium — which has “the distance between any two opposing points on opposite edges of [the] front surface of the gain medium being more than the distance between [the] front and rear surfaces,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 14) — with (ii) Linford’s teaching of a laser communication system using retroreflectors, because such a combination would render Linford’s system unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 17. Specifically, Appellant argues Linford’s system requires a gain medium (e.g., a rod or elongated envelope) that provides for high gain with a narrow angular range to fulfill its intended purpose of a secure, covert, and long distance laser communications system. See, e.g., App. Br. 10, 13; Reply Br. 5—6, 11—13; December 10, 2013 Declaration of Dr. Paschotta (hereinafter “2013 Paschotta Decl.”) 15 (“[A] very limited angular range with high gain is well compatible with Linford’s covert communication 3 Appeal 2016-000036 Application 12/088,385 system, as it contributes to the security of communication.”); id. (“The elongated geometry [of Linford’s gain medium] implies that the high maximum laser gain is available only in a very limited angular range.”). In contrast, Appellant argues the geometry of Hunt’s disk gain medium and its orientation (lasing across the thin dimension) provides for only low gain over a wide angular range. See, e.g., App. Br. 17, 19-20; Reply Br. 4; see also 2013 Paschotta Deck 1 5 (“[A] laser-active dis[k] exhibits a small gain but over a much larger angular range.”). Appellant argues that the low gain would be unsuitable for long distance communications and the wide angle would more readily allow for the communication to be detected or eavesdropped upon. See, e.g., Reply Br. 12; see also id. (quoting Linford col. 3,11. 63—67 (“The high degree of security afforded by this system is due primarily to the fact that the remote retroreflector must be aligned in the optical field of view of the transmitting station before any significant radiation is transmitted.”)) (Emphases omitted). Appellant, thus, contends “the combining of the teachings presented by the Examiner would not have occurred to the person of skill in the art.” Id.', see also 2013 Paschotta Deck 1 5 (opining one of ordinary skill in the art would not have substituted Hunt’s disk gain medium for Linford’s rod gain medium because such substitution would be unsuitable for Linford’s covert communications). The Examiner finds the degree to which Linford’s or Hunt’s lasers impart gain (e.g., high or low) “is irrelevant to realizing Linford’s clearly stated intended purpose.” Ans. 14. Rather, the Examiner finds fulfilling Linford’s intended purpose “rests primarily on the presence, correct 4 Appeal 2016-000036 Application 12/088,385 positioning, and unobstructed communication of [Linford’s] remote retroreflector rather than utilization of a particular gain medium, a gain medium of particular dimensions, or a gain medium that imparts a particular degree of gain.” Ans. 15. Specifically, the Examiner finds Linford teaches that without the presence and correct alignment of the remote retroreflector, there is no laser cavity and only trivial radiation is emitted, which is not readily detectable by an observer. See id. (citing Linford col. 2,11. 9-25). We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Based on the evidence of record, we find that substituting Hunt’s disk gain medium for Linford’s rod gain medium would provide a laser having low gain and a wide angular range. See 2013 Paschotta Deck 15. We find that the resultant laser’s low gain is unsatisfactory for long distance communications2 (e.g., insufficient output power for distance) and the wide angle is unsatisfactory for maintaining secure and covert communications (e.g., a wide angular range allows for far easier detection and snooping). See id.', Linford col. 2,11. 21— 26 (“The only time laser oscillation takes place in accordance with the present invention is when the receiving retroreflector is present and aligned. Even then, however, the solid angle occupied by the light beam is reduced to a minimum.”) (emphasis added); id. at col 1,11. 43^44 (“It is therefore an object of the present invention to improve the security of laser communications systems.”). We thus find substituting Hunt’s disk gain medium for Linford’s rod gain medium would render Linford unsatisfactory 2 We note Linford repeatedly refers to using high gain lasers, including as repeaters, for long distance communications. See, e.g., col. 1,11. 58—60; col. 2,1. 46; col. 4,11. 46-A8. 5 Appeal 2016-000036 Application 12/088,385 for its intended purpose, and therefore, that there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Additionally, we are unpersuaded by the Examiner’s alternative findings (Ans. 16—23). For example, we agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 4— 10) that the Examiner’s finding that the Specification calls for a laser having high gain output (Ans. 17) is erroneous — rather, the Specification calls for the material used for the gain medium to be high gain “to enable a small, efficient device.” See Spec. ]Hf 93—98. We also find that the Examiner’s findings that (i) “at some point Hunt’s gain medium will reach a length long enough to satisfy Linford’s purported requirement for ‘high gain’” (Ans. 19) and (ii) “thin disk laser[s] such as Hunt’s will absolutely produce high gain with a large number or passes through the gain medium” are not supported by the record evidence. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal because each rejection is based on combining at least Linford and Hunt. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21—23, 25, 27—31, 33—37, 40, 41, 43—46, 51—53, and 71— 74. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation