10529055 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

Ex Parte Harris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 11, 2012

10529055 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL HARRIS, CHRISTOPHER HILL, and ANDREW C LEWIN ____________________ Appeal 2010-007009 Application 10/529,055 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: NEAL E. ABRAMS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007009 Application 10/529,055 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 16 and 18-21. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a bistatic laser radar apparatus. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 A bistatic laser radar device comprising: a transmit channel for forming a variable focus transmit beam, and a receive channel for forming a variable focus receive beam, wherein the device is arranged such that all points of focus of the transmit beam and all points of focus of the receive beam fall on a common axis within the operable distance range of the device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Carlson Schneiter Schneiter Tocher Evans US 3,554,646 US 4,963,017 US 5,082,362 US 5,280,332 US 6,323,941 B1 Jan. 12, 1971 Oct. 16, 1990 Jan. 21, 1992 Jan. 18, 1994 Nov. 27, 2001 Holton Bowers US 2002/0075472 A1 US 2003/0184729 A1 Jun. 20, 2002 Oct. 2, 2003 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 6, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schneiter. Ans. 3. Claims 3-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneiter and Bowers. Ans. 4. Appeal 2010-007009 Application 10/529,055 3 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneiter, Bowers and Carlson . Ans. 5. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneiter and Tocher. Ans. 5. Claim 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneiter and Holton. Ans. 5. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneiter and Evans . Ans. 6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneiter and Carlson . Ans. 6. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneiter and Carlson. Ans. 6. OPINION Appellants and the Examiner appear to correctly agree that the term “bistatic laser radar,” which is also referred to by Appellants as “lidar” (Spec. p. 1), in the preamble should be afforded patentable weight. Ans. 7; App. Br. 8-9. There does not appear to be any debate that Schneiter ‘362 discloses separate transmit and receive optics, as would be implied by the term “bistatic.” See Spec. p. 2, ll. 3-4; Schneiter ‘362 Figures 6, 15. Thus, the dispute concerning this language centers around whether the device depicted in Figure 6 or Figure 15 of Schneiter ‘362 is properly interpreted as a “laser radar” device. App. Br. 10. The Examiner incorrectly contends that “radar” or, therefore “laser radar” or lidar does not require timing of the electromagnetic wave signal. The Examiner’s interpretation conflicts with the ordinary meaning of the Appeal 2010-007009 Application 10/529,055 4 terms as they would be understood by one skilled in the art.1 Further, Schneiter ‘362 clearly distinguishes the triangulation techniques disclosed therein from techniques requiring time-of-flight measurements, including specifically, LIDAR & RADAR. Col. 1, ll. 30-34. Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Prior art references may be ‘indicative of what all those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ... [and] can often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.’ Accordingly, the PTO’s interpretation of claim terms should not be so broad that it conflicts with the meaning given to identical terms in other patents from analogous art.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Since this improper interpretation forms the basis for all of the Examiner’s rejections, we are constrained to reverse them. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED Klh 1 See radar and lidar in The Penguin Dictionary of Physics (a radar system analyzes the time between transmission of the signal and reception of the echo and lidar is a radar-like technique) retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/pendphys/radar_radio_direction_and_ ranging and http://www.credoreference.com/entry/pendphys/lidar_light_detection_and_r anging, respectively.