Ex Parte Micko

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 15, 2008

10600314 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 15, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ERIC SCOTT MICKO
____________

Appeal 2007-3957
Application 10/600,314
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: April 15, 2008
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON,
and ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under appeal 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Reverse.

Appeal 2007-3957
Application 10/600,314

As best representative of the disclosed and claimed invention,
independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A passive infrared (IR) motion sensor, comprising:

at least a first IR detector outputting a first signal having a first
frequency when a moving object passes in a detection volume of the first
detector:

at least a second IR detector outputting a second signal having a
second frequency when the moving object passes in a detection volume of
the second detector, the second frequency being different than the first; and

a processing system receiving the first and second signals and at least
partially based on the first and second signals, outputting a detection signal
representative of the moving object, wherein the detectors have the same
size as each other, the first detector being provided with a first optics
defining a first focal length and the second detector being provided with a
second optics defining a second focal length different than the first focal
length, the second detector not having an optics of the same focal length as
the first optics.

The following references are relied on by the Examiner:
Schwarz US 3,829,693 Aug. 13, 1974
Sugimoto US 5,461,231 Oct. 24, 1995
All claims on appeal, claims 1 through 9, stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies upon
Sugimoto in view of Schwarz.
Rather than repeat verbatim the positions of the Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellant’s
positions, and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.

2
Appeal 2007-3957
Application 10/600,314

OPINION
Generally, for the reasons set forth by Appellant in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Independent claim 1 requires a first and second detector, where the
first detector is provided with a first optics having first focal length and
where the second detector has second optics defining a second focal length
that is different from the first focal length. Additionally, and significantly,
the claim further requires “the second detector not having an optics of the
same focal length as the first optics.” Independent claim 4 has similar
limitations requiring two detectors having optics of different focal lengths
“such that the first detector has no optics of the same focal length as any
optics of the second detector.” Correspondingly, two detectors are also
recited in independent claim 8, where an optics system defines a first focal
length associated with a first detector and “a second focal length associated
with the second detector but not with the first detector, the first and second
focal lengths not being equal to each other.” These negative limitations
from independent claims 1, 4, and 8 exclude any one detector having dual,
different focal lengths where any one of which is in the other detector.
From our understanding of the Examiner’s statement of the rejection
at pages 3 and 4 of the Answer followed by the responsive arguments at
pages 5 and 6 of the Answer, the Examiner appears not to have come to

3
Appeal 2007-3957
Application 10/600,314

grips with these negative limitations. Appellant’s positions at pages 4 and 5
of the principal Brief and pages 1 and 2 of the Reply Brief do not contest the
proper combinability of the teachings of the respective references to
Sugimoto and Schwarz.
We agree with Appellant’s basic view that combining the teachings of
Schwarz with Sugimoto would not result in the present claims but would
merely provide two detectors that are identical, each one of which has optics
providing two different focal lengths, but none of which that has a focal
length that is absent from the optics of the other detector, as set forth in
different words in each of independent claims 1, 4, and 8.
The Examiner has not set forth any rationale considering the teachings
of both references that would have given rise to a conclusion that the quoted
negative limitations from each independent claim on appeal are met. In fact,
according to the Examiner’s reasoning and our understanding of all that the
combined teachings of both references would have provided, they would not
have yielded any single detector not having optics having the same focal
length as in the other detector.

4
Appeal 2007-3957
Application 10/600,314

In view of the foregoing, since we do not sustain the rejection of each
independent claim 1, 4, and 8, we also reverse the rejection of their
respective dependent claims. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner is
reversed.
REVERSED

pgc

ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
750 B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
5