Ex Parte Lonn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 9, 2010

11741063 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 9, 2010)

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.
11/741,063 04/27/2007 Olof Lonn 20459-00405-US1 2284
30678 7590 08/09/2010
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
1875 EYE STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
LE, JOHN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2010 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 OLOF LONN
________________

Appeal 2009-013692
Application 11/741,063
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAY P. LUCAS, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-013692
Application 11/741,063

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-13. Claim 7 has been
indicated as containing allowable subject matter. An Oral Hearing was held
on August 3, 2010.
We reverse the rejection of record. Pursuant to our authority under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1-13 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
[Appellant’s] invention relates to a method and device
for the determination of the roll angle Φ of a rotating body,
such as a shell, utilizing sensors for the detection of rotation
signals in a body-fixed coordinate system. According to the
invention, a new filter device is proposed to handle moment
interferences to which the body is subjected, for example,
caused by wind turbulence in the atmosphere or similar
phenomena. The interferences are eliminated by useful
measurement signals emitted by the sensors being mixed down
to the frequency zero and by the sensors' rotation signals
thereafter being low-pass filtered.
(Abstract).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, reading as follows:
1. A method for determination of the roll angle Φ of a
rotating body comprising utilizing sensors for the detection of
rotation signals in a body-fixed coordinate system, in which the
body-fixed rotation signals emitted by the sensors are filtered,
characterized in that a useful measurement signal in the sensors'
rotation signals is mixed down to zero in frequency and in that
the rotation signals are thereafter low-pass filtered.

Claims 1-6 and 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Mark (US 6,285,954 B1) in view of Kay (US 5,347,361).
Appeal 2009-013692
Application 11/741,063

3
The Examiner finds that Mark discloses a device and method for
determining the roll angle of a rotating body, the device including body-
fixed sensors that detect rotation signals, and also including a signal
interference filter (Ans. 3). The Examiner acknowledges that Mark fails to
disclose “a mixer for mixing down a useful measurement signal in the
sensors’ rotation signals to zero in frequency and a low-pass filter for
thereafter low-pass filtering the down-mixed rotation signals with useful
measurement signal[s]” (id.). However, the Examiner finds that Kay
discloses a useful measurement signal (Ans. 3-5). More specifically, the
Examiner states that photodetector output signals 16, 18 (or s1, s2) constitute
the useful measurement signal (Ans. 5:4-5).2 The Examiner further finds
(Ans. 3) that Kay discloses “a mixer (28, 30) for mixing down a useful
measurement signal in the sensors’ rotation signals to zero in frequency”
(citing Kay, col. 15, ll. 46-52) and that Kay discloses an integrator 40 that
constitutes a low-pass filter (citing Kay, col. 10, ll. 26-32). The Examiner
concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to inform [sic: ?] a filter
device comprises a mixer for mixing down a useful
measurement signal in the sensors’ rotation signals to zero in
frequency and a low-pass filter for thereafter low-pass filtering
the down-mixed rotation signals with useful measurement
signal as taught by Kay in the device of Marl [sic: Mark] et al.

2 The record is not completely clear as to whether the Examiner is, in fact,
interpreting the useful signal as reading on one of the output signals s1, s2.
The Examiner additionally states that the dither frequency component fd of
the photodetector output signals s1, s2 is what is provided to the mixers (Ans.
5:6-7 (citing Kay, Col. 15, ll. 46-52)), thereby implying that the dither
frequency component fd, not the full photodetector output signal, s1, s2,
corresponds to the useful measurement signal.
Appeal 2009-013692
Application 11/741,063

4
for the purpose of providing high accuracy or high resolution,
the need also exists to minimize or remove this dither signal
component in the sensor output signal (Kay, Col. 3, lines 18-
21).
(Ans. 4).
Appellant asserts inter alia that Kay does not teach the step of mixing
signals s1, s2 down to zero (App. Br. 9).

ISSUE AND CONCLUSION
The dispositive issue before us, then, is: Has the Examiner
established a prima facie showing that Kay mixes a useful signal down to
zero? Because we understand the Examiner to be equating the claim
language “useful signal” to at least one of Kay’s output signals, s1 and s2,
and because Kay does not teach mixing either of the signals, s1, s2, down to
zero, we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie
showing that the combination of Mark and Kay teaches every limitation of
either independent method claim 1 or independent apparatus claim 2.

ANALYSIS
Kay discloses that the “sinusoidal signals s1 and s2 are converted to
digital pulse strings by threshold circuits 24 and 26, respectively,” which, in
turn, “are provided to the input signal terminals of mixers 28 and 30,
respectively” (col. 8, ll. 10-15). The mixers mix the input signals with a
carrier frequency signal, fr, producing output signals u1 and u2, each output
signal representing “essentially a double sideband suppressed carrier signal”
(col. 8, ll. 19-26). “[T]hese sideband signals are transformed, or shifted, in
frequency by an amount equal to the reference frequency fr such that the
Appeal 2009-013692
Application 11/741,063

5
lower sideband is always greater than zero” (col. 9, ll. 6-9). In summary
then, since the lower sideband of the signal output by each mixer is greater
than zero, the mixers do not down-mix the useful signal itself down to zero.

NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new
ground of rejection for claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 because
Appellant’s Specification does not provide adequate written description of
the claim term “useful signal.”
The purpose of the written description requirement is to convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought,
Applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath,
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The written
description requirement is not necessarily met as a matter of law, though,
merely because the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the
Specification. Enzo Biochem v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (“The
appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an
original claim, does not necessarily satisfy [the written description]
requirement.”). The disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to visualize
or recognize the identity of the subject matter purportedly described. Id.
(citation omitted).
In the present case, Appellant defines “the useful signal” as
(Spec. 4:35, 5:1; Figs. 3 and 4; App. Br. 6). Appellant’s Specification,
though, nowhere sets forth what Greek symbol theta (θ) represents. The
Specification only sets forth that the roll angle is alternatively represented by
Appeal 2009-013692
Application 11/741,063

6
the Greek symbol phi (Φ) (e.g., Spec. 1:7), that the constant error in the roll
angle is represented by the expression delta phi (ΔΦ) (e.g., Spec. 3:27), and
that the letter “g” represents gravitation (e.g., Spec. 1:28). As such, the
Specification does not enable one skilled in the art to understand what is
meant by the Greek symbol theta, much less what is meant by the
mathematical expression representing the absolute value of the time
derivative of θg, if indeed that is the meaning of the expression. That is, the
Specification does not enable one skilled in the art to understand what is
meant by the claim term “a useful measurement signal” that appears in each
of independent claims 1 and 2. On inquiry at the Oral Hearing mentioned
above, Appellant’s Counsel did not resolve this issue.

DECISION
We do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection with respect
to independent claims 1 and 2. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting
independent claims 1 and 2, as well as dependent claims 3-6 and 8-13 that
dependent therefrom, is reversed.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new
ground of rejection for claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 because
Appellant’s Specification does not provide adequate written description of
the claim term “useful signal.”

FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) (2007). This regulation states that “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
Appeal 2009-013692
Application 11/741,063

7
Furthermore, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of
rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .

Should Appellant elect to prosecute further before the Examiner
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(1), in order to preserve the right to seek
review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145 with respect to the affirmed rejection,
the effective date of the affirmance is deferred until conclusion of the
prosecution before the Examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited
prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If Appellant elects prosecution before the Examiner and this does not
result in allowance of the application, abandonment or a second appeal, this
case should be returned to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for
final action on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request for
rehearing thereof.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

Appeal 2009-013692
Application 11/741,063

8
REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

tkl
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP
1875 EYE STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20006