10437836 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2006)

Ex Parte VandenBerg

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 20, 2006

10437836 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2006)

1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _______________ Ex parte NORMAN VANDENBERG ______________ Appeal No. 2006-2067 Application 10/437,836 _______________ HEARD: August 10, 2006 _______________ Before FRANKFORT, OWENS and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This appeal is from a rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the pending claims. THE INVENTION The appellant claims a method and system for remotely sensing terrain elevation. Claims 1 and 13 are illustrative: 1. A method of remotely sensing terrain elevation, comprising the steps of: sampling returns from radar scatterers associated with the terrain along multiple lanes using first and second channels that overlap to form a cross-shaped antenna pattern; and Appeal No. 2006-2067 Application 10/437,836 2 analyzing the returns to determine the elevation according to one or more of the following modalities: phase monopulse(PM) amplitude monopulse(AM), and time delay response(TDR). 13. A multi-mode altimeter system for use on a platform that moves relative to a terrain of interest, the system comprising: a multi-channel antenna operative to generate overlapping antenna patterns on a terrain partitioned into a plurality of sampling lanes; and a processor to perform elevation measurements of the terrain, including time- delay-response(TDR), amplitude-monopulse(AM) and phase-monopulse(PM) operational modes. THE REFERENCES Madsen et al. (Madsen) 5,659,318 Aug. 19, 1997 Marino et al. (Marino) 6,396,437 May 28, 2002 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Marino. OPINION The rejection is reversed as to claims 1-12 and 17-20, and affirmed as to claims 13- 16. Claims 1-12 and 17-20 We need to address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 6, 7 and 17. Claims 1 and 7 require a method for remotely sensing terrain elevation comprising sampling returns Appeal No. 2006-2067 Application 10/437,836 3 from radar scatterers associated with the terrain along multiple lanes using first and second channels that overlap to form a cross-shaped antenna pattern. Claim 6 requires an interferometric synthetic aperture radar system which overlaps antenna patterns to form a cross-shaped footprint enabling simultaneous terrain elevation measurement. Claim 17 requires a multi-mode altimeter system having a multi-channel antenna operative to generate an overlapping, cross-shaped pattern defining a first channel and a second channel. Madsen discloses an interferometric synthetic aperture radar system for elevation having two antennas (110, 120) that each detect pulse signals including information in the form of phase and amplitude of an entire area (130) having random objects (132) therein (col. 4, lines 60-63). Residual delay estimation can be used to determine the absolute phase, which is a phase value that is directly proportional to the slant range difference from a target to the two antennas, without using known ground references (col. 11, lines 6-9 and 55-58). The residual delay estimation technique uses the relative phase values of all data points within a data patch from the antenna’s data channels to transform a complex image from one channel to be identical to an image from the other channel (col. 9, lines 50-51; col. 11, lines 59-62). “The resulting phase shift is proportional to twice the time delay of the uncompensated range difference between the two images” (col. 11, lines 62-65). Marino discloses a multibeam radar velocity sensor that performs both Doppler shift and time-correlation measurements (col. 1, lines 6-8). To determine the velocity of an aircraft, a Doppler shift measurement is made of return signals from four symmetrical position beams (1-4; figure 1) that are transmitted and received serially over four distinct Appeal No. 2006-2067 Application 10/437,836 4 time intervals (col. 2, lines 39-43). Time correlation measurements are obtained in fifth and sixth time intervals from two additional beams (5,6) which have a cross-shaped transmit pattern (7,8; figure 1) and a circular receive pattern (9; figure 1) (col. 2, lines 43-45; figure 1). The examiner argues that “it would have been obvious to modify Madsen to form the cross shaped pattern for better terrain coverage and better time correlation of the return signals” (answer, pages 4 and 7). The examiner has not pointed out where Marino discloses that the cross-shaped pattern provides better terrain coverage and time correlation of the return signals. Moreover, the examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered any benefit of Marino’s velocity sensor to be applicable to Madsen’s elevation sensor. We therefore conclude that the examiner has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention in the appellant’s claims 1-12 and 17-20. Claims 13-16 Claim 13 requires a multi-mode altimeter system having a multi-channel antenna operative to generate overlapping antenna patterns on a terrain partitioned into a plurality of sampling lanes. Madsen’s antenna patterns overlap (col. 4, lines 58-63; figure 1). Madsen’s disclosure that a predetermined continuous flight track is a preferred embodiment (col. 4, lines 11-12) indicates that the system is capable of being used with a terrain partitioned into a plurality of sampling lanes. Furthermore, Madsen would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system that is capable of use with a terrain Appeal No. 2006-2067 Application 10/437,836 5 patterned into a plurality of sampling lanes to determine the elevation of a region larger than a single sampling lane. Claim 13 also requires a processor to perform elevation measurements of the terrain, including an operational mode that can be time delay response. The appellant argues that Madsen’s time delay is a means to measure range, whereas the appellant’s time delay “is used to measure the occurrence of a response along the flight line, which in conjunction with the unique cross-shaped antenna pattern footprints is used to measure cross-track position of a prominent scatterer” (brief, page 3). The appellant’s claim 13 does not require a cross-shaped antenna pattern. Madsen’s residual delay estimation determines a phase shift that is proportional to twice the time delay of the uncompensated range difference between two antennas and, therefore, reasonably can be considered a time-delay-response operational mode (col. 11, lines 6-9 and 55-65). The appellant has not defined “time-delay- response”, let alone define it in a way that would exclude Madsen’s residual delay estimation. The appellant argues, regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 13, that Madsen does not disclose amplitude monopulse (brief, page 4). Claim 14 does not recite amplitude monopulse but, rather, recites phase monopulse. The claim, however, does not require phase monopulse. The claim merely requires that if the operational mode is phase monopulse, it utilizes interferometric Doppler beam sharpening. The claim, like claim 13, can be met by the operational mode being time-delay-response. Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 13 and requires that the time-delay- response mode is implemented by performing elevation measurements in multiple channels Appeal No. 2006-2067 Application 10/437,836 6 within a common lane, the appellant argues that “Madsen only uses time delay as a measurement of range and ultimately phase” (brief, page 5). Madsen performs elevation measurements in multiple channels, i.e., the channels of the two antennas, within a common lane that includes area 130 (col. 4, lines 58-63). For the above reasons we conclude that the invention claimed in the appellant’s claims 13-16 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the applied prior art. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Madsen in view of Marino is reversed as to claims 1-12 and 17-20, and affirmed as to claims 13-16. Appeal No. 2006-2067 Application 10/437,836 7 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ROBERT E. NAPPI ) Administrative Patent Judge ) Appeal No. 2006-2067 Application 10/437,836 8 TJO/lg GIFFORD, KRASS, GROH, SPRINKLE & CITKOWSKI, P.C. P.O. BOX 7021 TROY, MI 48007-7021 Appeal No. 2006-2067 Application 10/437,836 9