Ex Parte Martin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 8, 2012

10529192 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES MARTIN and KAMBIZ IRANPOUR
____________

Appeal 2010-001075
Application 10/529,192
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James Martin and Kambiz Iranpour (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-21,
and 23-27. Claims 6 and 22 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-001075
Application 10/529,192

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to acoustic ranging.”
Spec. 1, l. 7. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus for determining a propagation time delay,
comprising:
at least one source adapted to generate a plurality of
separable, modulated Doppler invariant signals;
at least one receiver deployed along a seismic sensing
cable, wherein the receiver is adapted to receive at least one
modulated Doppler invariant signal from the at least one
source; and
a signal processing unit adapted to determine the
propagation time delay between the source and the receiver
using the modulated Doppler invariant signal and the received
modulated Doppler invariant signal.
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-17, 20, 21, and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Williams (US 5,359,575; iss. Oct. 25, 1994).
2. Claims 2, 3, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Williams, and Altes (Richard A. Altes, Radar/Sonar Acceleration
Estimation With Linear-Period Modulated Waveforms, 26 IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYS., 914-24 (1990))
or Ashley (Anthony T. Ashley and James S. Diamond, Own Doppler
Nullification (ODN) in Sonars Using Linear Period Modulated (LPM)
Wideband Signals, IEEE PACIFIC RIM CONF. ON COMMS., COMPUTERS
AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, 570-73 (1989)).
Appeal 2010-001075
Application 10/529,192

3
ISSUE
The Examiner determined that Williams discloses “a method and
apparatus for determining a propagation time delay where at least one source
generates a plurality of separable, modulated Doppler invariant signals.”
Ans. 4 (citations omitted). Appellants argue that the signals described in
Williams “are ‘separated’ – i.e., separated in time – rather than ‘separable’”
and that “they are separated in time because they are not ‘separable.’” App.
Br. 10. See also Reply Br. 2 (“something that is ‘separable’ ‘is capable of
being separated’” so that “the signals are not necessarily separated but are
distinguishable in some manner so that they can be.”). The Examiner
responds that “examiner does not see a difference between ‘separable’ and
‘separated’ within the context of transmitted pulses.” Ans. 6. The issue
presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner’s finding that Williams
discloses “a method and apparatus for determining a propagation time delay
where at least one source generates a plurality of separable, modulated
Doppler invariant signals” is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that the terms “separable” and “separated”
describe two different states of existence. Reply Br. 2. Signals that are
“separable” refer to signals that are distinguishable in some manner so that
they are capable of being separated. Id. This understanding of “separable”
signals is consistent with the Specification, which provides an example of
rendering signals separable using a sequence to form an orthogonal Doppler
invariant acoustic signal. Spec. 12, ll. 13-21.
Appeal 2010-001075
Application 10/529,192

4
Williams transmits its signals through periodic firing of the seismic
source so that Williams’s signals are separated in time. Col. 3, ll. 64-68; col.
4, ll. 6-9. As such, the preponderance of the evidence does not support the
Examiner’s finding that Williams’s signals are “separable.” For this reason,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 17, or their
dependent claims 4, 5, 7-16, 20, 21, and 23-27, as anticipated by Williams.
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 18, and 19 is
based on the same erroneous finding that Williams discloses generating
“separable, modulated Doppler invariant signals.” Ans. 5. The Examiner
relies on Altes and Ashley to suggest modifying Williams to use a linear
period modulated signal as the Doppler invariant signal. Id. Thus, for the
same reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3,
18, and 19 as unpatentable over Williams and Altes or Ashley.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s finding that Williams discloses “a method and
apparatus for determining a propagation time delay where at least one source
generates a plurality of separable, modulated Doppler invariant signals” is
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7-21, and 23-27 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED

nlk