10977190 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 11, 2011)

Ex Parte Bandhauer

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 11, 2011

10977190 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 11, 2011)

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. 10/977,190 10/28/2004 Brian D. Bandhauer 3828 8974 27727 7590 10/11/2011 PEDERSEN & COMPANY, PLLC P.O. BOX 2666 BOISE, ID 83701 EXAMINER SOTOMAYOR, JOHN B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/11/2011 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte BRIAN D. BANDHAUER ____________ Appeal 2009-010310 Application 10/977,190 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-010310 Application 10/977,190 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Brian D. Bandhauer (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McEwan (US 6,414,627 B1 issued Jul. 2, 2002) (hereafter “McEwan I”) or McEwan (US 2005/0164643 A1 published Jul. 28, 2005) (hereafter “McEwan II”) and Williams (US 5,818,381 issued Oct. 6, 1998). Claims 1-5 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6. THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to a radar system for assisting the visually impaired by converting reflected radio-frequency energy to an audio output including a control unit 26, left and right radar receivers 28, wiring 27, and sound transducers 23. Spec. 1, 12 and 13, and fig. 4. Claims 6 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 6. An echolocater with audio output, comprising: - a radar transmitter; - two identical, spaced-apart radar receivers; - said receivers being adapted to down-convert and replicate a radar echo from the radar transmitter, by integrated sampling of the echo without the use of mixer or local oscillator components, so that the complete amplitude, phase and Doppler characteristics of the echo, including propagation delay, are preserved and time-scaled from the speed-of-light propagation of the radar transmitter to approximately speed-of-sound after the down-conversion via integrated sampling, and provide audio output of said complete, down-converted echo, and, - two identical spaced-apart sound transducers for receiving the audio output. Appeal 2009-010310 Application 10/977,190 3 SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. ANALYSIS On page 3 of Appellant’s Amendment filed September 24, 2007, (hereafter “Appellant’s Amendment”), Appellant states “Applicant’s main Claim #6 has been amended to now recite the structural features of the McEwan type of ranging radar.” The Examiner takes the position that Appellant’s statement is an admission that “the claimed structure, with respect to the radar itself, is disclosed in the prior art.” Ans. 3. The Examiner further notes that Appellant admits that the “integrated sampling” technique of either McEwan I or McEwan II is known. Ans. 3-4 (citing Spec. 1-2). Hence the Examiner appears to take the position that because the radar system of either McEwan I or McEwan II uses “integrated sampling” technology, the structure of the radar system of either McEwan I or McEwan II and Williams reads on Appellant’s claimed echolocater. In other words, the Examiner found, without providing any evidence other than the purported admission, that either McEwan I or McEwan II and Williams disclosethe structure of the claimed echolocater. At the outset, we note that claim 6 requires “two identical, spaced- apart radar receivers.” Appellant argues that the combined teachings of either McEwan I or McEwan II and Williams does not disclose “two identical spaced-apart radar receivers,” as called for by claim 6. Reply Br. 1-2. We agree. Although we appreciate that the radar systems of either McEwan I or McEwan II uses an “integrated sampling” technique, the Examiner has not Appeal 2009-010310 Application 10/977,190 4 directed us to a particular portion in McEwan I, McEwan II, or Williams which would support the Examiner’s findings.1 In this case, we find that the system of McEwan I uses transmitting antenna 16 as a receiving antenna or in the alternative uses a separate receiving antenna 28, does not disclose using both antennas 16 and 28 as receiving antennas. See McEwan I, col. 5, ll. 6-13 and fig. 1. Similarly, with respect to McEwan II, we are unable to find any disclosure regarding “two identical spaced-apart radar receivers,” as called for in claim 6. Finally, the personal radar system of Williams includes a transmitting antenna 30 and a receiving antenna 32. Williams, col. 4, l. 1. Hence, none of McEwan I, McEwan II, or Williams discloses “two identical spaced-apart radar receivers,” as called for by independent claim 6. As such, neither the combined teachings of McEwan I or McEwan II and Williams disclose “two identical spaced-apart radar receivers.” For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McEwan I or McEwan II and Williams cannot be sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988). SUMMARY The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6-10 is reversed. REVERSED nlk 1 MPEP § 706.02(j) (8th ed., Rev. 8, Jul. 2010).