Ex Parte Micko

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2008

10388862 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ERIC SCOTT MICKO
_____________

Appeal 2007-4006
Application 10/388,862
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided: March 27, 2008
_______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) from the final
rejection of claims 1 through 15, and 24 through 35.
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
INVENTION

The invention is directed to a passive infrared (IR) motion sensor.
See page 3 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below:
Appeal 2007-4006
Application 10/388,862

1. A passive infrared (IR) motion sensor, comprising:
at least a first IR detector outputting a first signal having a first
frequency in response to a stimulus in a detection volume of the first
detector;
at least a second IR detector outputting a second signal, the
second signal having a second frequency different than the first
frequency when the stimulus is a moving object, the second signal
having the first frequency when the stimulus is non-moving; and
a processing system receiving the first and second signals and
at least partially based on the first and second signals having different
frequencies, outputting a detection signal representative of the moving
object, and otherwise, when both detectors output the same frequency,
not outputting a signal representative of a moving object.

REFERENCES

Schwarz US 3,829,693 Aug. 13, 1974
Miyake US 4,618,854 Oct. 21, 1986
Schwarz US 5,420,567 May 30, 1995
Sugimoto US 5,461,231 Oct. 24, 1995

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 24 through 27, 29 through 31, and 35 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in
view of Schwarz (‘567). The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 8
of the Answer.
Claims 2 through 6, 9 through 12, 15, and 32 through 34 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in
view of Schwarz (‘567) and Schwarz (‘693). The Examiner’s rejection is on
pages 8 through 10 of the Answer.
2

Appeal 2007-4006
Application 10/388,862

Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sugimoto in view of Schwarz (‘567) and Miyake. The
Examiner’s rejection is on page 10 of the Answer.
Claims 8 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 10 and 11 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
October 4, 2005), Reply Brief (received March 6, 2006) and the Answer
(mailed March 3, 2006) for the respective details thereof.

ISSUES
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 13,
14, 24 through 27, 29 through 31, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in
error. Appellant asserts that the independent claims on appeal recite a sensor
that discriminates between moving and non-moving objects by determining
whether the frequencies output by two detectors are the same or different.
Appellant argues that the combination of Sugimoto and Schwarz (‘567) does
not teach such a feature.
Thus, the first issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in
determining that the combination of Sugimoto and Schwarz (‘567), teach or
suggest a sensor that discriminates between moving and non-moving objects
based upon a comparison of the output frequency of two detectors.
On page 9 of the Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 8 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is in error.
Appellant states the claims are clear as written “[t]he first and second
(unequal) frequencies recited in the first two elements of the claim are not
3

Appeal 2007-4006
Application 10/388,862

the equal frequencies subsequently received, nor is [it] grammatically
correct to read the claim otherwise.”
Thus, the second issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 8 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Sugimoto teaches a passive-type moving object detector which makes
use of two columns and two rows of infrared detection regions.
Abstract.
2. The purpose of Sugimoto’s device is to detect movement of a person
and avoid false alarms from movement by a non-human object (i.e. a
small animal such as a dog). Col. 2, ll. 9-12.
3. The system monitors the output of both the columns of detectors and
the rows of detectors and the positive and negative peak output from
each detector is held. A circuit subtracts the positive peak from the
negative peak and if the value is greater than a threshold the intruder
is a human. Sugimoto, col. 4, ll. 11-20.
4. Figures 3(A) and 3(B) depict the wave forms produced as a person
passes in front of the detectors. Figure 3(C) depicts the difference
between the positive peaks and the negative peaks. Sugimoto, col. 4,
ll. 22-39.
5. Figures 4(A) and 4(B) depict the wave forms produced as a dog
passes in front of the detectors. Figure 4(C) depicts the difference
between the positive peaks and the negative peaks. Note the
difference values are much lower than when a person passes in front
of the detector. Sugimoto, col. 4, ll. 40-56.
4

Appeal 2007-4006
Application 10/388,862

6. Sugimoto teaches that there are two sensors are connected in series
with like polarities together (i.e. negative polarity of the first
connected to negative polarity of the second), and that this
arrangement (differential connection), negates any ambient
interference with the detectors. Col. 1, ll. 38-40, 48-52, see also
circuit arrangement of items 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b in figure 2.
7. Sugimoto does not teach that the frequency output from the detectors
is measured, rather, Sugimoto implicitly teaches measuring the
magnitude of the output of the detectors, to perform the calculation
discussed in fact 5.
8. Schwarz (‘567) teaches a combination fire and intrusion alarm that
makes use of an infrared detector. Abstract
9. Schwarz (‘567) teaches that it is known to use two infrared detectors
connected in series with like polarities together (i.e. negative polarity
of the first connected to negative polarity of the second). This is done
so that identical changes in temperature monitored by both sensors
cause identical changes, which are then canceled by common mode
rejection. Col. 1, ll. 19-29.
10. Schwarz’s (‘567) system makes use of the common mode rejection
to monitor for intruders, but also monitors only one of the detectors
(thus there is no common mode rejection) to determine if there is a
fire present in the monitored space. Col. 7, ll. 42-61.

5

Appeal 2007-4006
Application 10/388,862

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 13, 24, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is in error. Independent claim 1 recites a “a processing system receiving the
first and second signals and at least partially based on the first and second
signals having different frequencies, outputting a detection signal
representative of the moving object, and otherwise, when both detectors
output the same frequency, not outputting a signal representative of a
moving object.” Thus, the scope of claim 1 requires that detection is
determined when the frequencies are determined to be different.
Independent claims 8, 13, 24, and 31 recite similar limitations.
In rejecting the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
Examiner states:
Sugimoto et al. clearly disclose that detector signals comprise of
waveforms having different frequencies (see e.g., Figs. 3a and 3b) and
that an analysis of these waveforms having different frequencies
allows the detection of a body moving through the field of view.
Therefore the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art that an analysis of
waveforms having different frequencies allows the detection of a body
moving through the field of view.

Answer 11. While we agree that Sugimoto teaches that the detector signal
shown in figure 3(A), has a different frequency from the signal shown in
figure 3(B), we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the analysis of the
frequencies is such that a difference in frequencies results in outputting a
detection signal as claimed. We find that the waveforms from the detectors
in Sugimoto are inputted into a peek hold circuit, the peak values of both the
positive wave and negative wave are used in a calculation. Facts 3 and 4.
6

Appeal 2007-4006
Application 10/388,862

The difference in these peak values is compared to a threshold value to
determine if there is an intruder (whether a detection signal is generated).
Fact 5. We find no teaching in Sugimoto that measures the frequencies.
Fact 7. Further, we find that Schwarz (‘567) teaches a system for measuring
both motion and fire. Fact 8. However, we find no teaching in Schwarz
(‘567) that teaches analyzing the frequencies output from the detectors such
that a difference in frequencies results in outputting a detection signal as
claimed. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, 13, 24, and 31, and dependent claims 7, 14, 25 through 27, 29,
30, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in
view of Schwarz (‘567).
The Examiner has not asserted, nor do we find that that the additional
references to Schwarz (‘693) or Miyake, provide teachings or suggestions
which rectify the above noted deficiency in the rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, 13, 24, and 31. Accordingly, we similarly reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 6, 9 through 12, 15, 28, and 32
through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant’s arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejection of claims
8 through 12 have not persuaded us of error. Independent claim 8 states:
receiving a first frequency from a first passive IR detector; receiving a
second frequency from a second passive IR detector, the first and
second frequencies not being equal; …. receiving equal frequencies
from the passive IR detectors and in response not outputting the signal
indicating the presence of the moving object.

The Examiner states on pages 10 and 11 of the Answer, that the claim is
indefinite as “[t]he frequencies from the passive IR detectors are either equal
or not equal.” We concur with the Examiner, claim 8 recites one frequency
7

Appeal 2007-4006
Application 10/388,862

from the first IR detector, the first frequency and one frequency from the
second detector, the second frequency, and that these frequencies are
different. The claim further recites “receiving equal frequencies from the
passive IR detectors.” As neither the claim nor the specification describes
that the individual IR detectors output two frequencies at the same time, we
consider the proper interpretation that the frequencies, discussed in the
“receiving equal frequencies” limitation, to be the first and second
frequencies recited as being received from the detectors. Thus, we concur
with the Examiner that claim 8 is ambiguous, and thereby indefinite as the
same two frequencies can not both be equal and unequal. Accordingly, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 8 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
8

Appeal 2007-4006
Application 10/388,862

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tdl

ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
750 B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
9