Farrokh Mohamadi

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 6, 2021

2021003726 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2021)

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.
14/841,275 08/31/2015 Farrokh Mohamadi 70096.172US02_82054 4204
27683 7590 12/06/2021
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
TURCHEN, ROCHELLE DEANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte FARROKH MOHAMADI
__________

Appeal 2021-003726
Application 14/841,275
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, and 17. Non-Final Act. 1 (Office Action
Summary). Claims 3, 7, and 9–16 have been canceled. See Appeal Br. 11–12
(Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons
explained below, we find error in the Examiner’s rejections.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies “Farrokh Mohamadi” as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-003726
Application 14/841,275

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to sensor and imaging
systems and, more particularly, to ultra wideband sensor systems integrated
with wafer scale antenna arrays for tissue imaging and cancer diagnosis in the
field of medicine.” Spec. 1:12–14. System claims 1 and 17 are independent.
Appeal Br. 4–5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A mammography scanning system comprising:
a first antenna array configured to transmit an ultra wide band
(UWB) sensor signal using right-hand circular polarization;
a second antenna array configured to receive a reflection of
the UWB sensor signal using left-hand circular polarization;
a transmitter configured to provide a pseudo-random coding
to the UWB sensor signal; and
a correlating receiver in communication with the second
antenna array and configured to use the pseudo-random coding of
the UWB sensor signal to provide a processing gain to extract the
reflection of the UWB sensor signal from background noise.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES

Name Reference Date
Fullerton et al.
(“Fullerton”)
US 2014/0309522 A1 Oct. 16, 2014
van der Weide et al.
(“van der Weide”)
US 2011/0168891 A1 July 14, 2011
J. Sachs et al., Ultra-Wideband Pseudo-Noise Sensors and Their Application
in Medical Engineering, Non-Destructive Testing and For Search and
Rescue, 54TH INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COLLOQUIUM, 2009 (“Sachs”)

Appeal 2021-003726
Application 14/841,275

3
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fullerton and Sachs. Non-Final Act. 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fullerton,
Sachs, and van der Weide. Non-Final Act. 5.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Fullerton, Sachs, and van der Weide. Non-Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, AND 8
AS OBVIOUS OVER FULLERTON AND SACHS
THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6 AND 17
AS OBVIOUS OVER FULLERTON, SACHS, AND VAN DER WEIDE2
The rejections of independent claims 1 and 17 rely primarily on the
teachings of Fullerton. See Non-Final Act. 3, 5, 6. Claim 1 recites a
mammography scanning system having “a first antenna array configured to
transmit an ultra wide band (UWB) sensor signal using right-hand circular
polarization” and “a second antenna array configured to receive a reflection of
the UWB sensor signal using left-hand circular polarization.” Appeal Br. 10
(Claims App.). Claim 17 recites a mammography scanning system having “a
first antenna array configured to transmit and receive a V-band ultra wide band
(UWB) sensor signal having left-hand circular polarization” and “a second
antenna array configured to receive the UWB sensor signal with right-hand
circular polarization.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Thus, both claims 1 and
17 (as well as dependent claims 2, 4–6, and 8) require the transmitting antenna

2 As noted above, the Examiner separately rejects claims 6 and 17, but relies on
the same art in doing so. We combine these two rejections here.
Appeal 2021-003726
Application 14/841,275

4
array and the receiving antenna array use signals with different circular
polarization (one being left hand and the other being right hand)––rather than
employing the same circular polarization. The Examiner finds that Fullerton
discloses such an arrangement. See Non-Final Act. 3, 6 (both citing Fullerton
¶ 223, claims 41 and 49).
Appellant contests this finding. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that “the
sole mention of RHCP or LHCP in Fullerton is that . . . its antennas may be
linearly-polarized or circularly-polarized” and that “[t]here is no teaching in
Fullerton for the use of an RHCP transmitting array and an LHCP receiving
array as recited in claim 1.”3 Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner responds that Fullerton’s claim 47 discloses both a
transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna. See Ans. 10; see also Fullerton
¶ 235. Further, Fullerton’s paragraph 237 discloses that antenna polarization, as
per the Examiner, “may be chosen to be circularly polarized (e.g., right-hand
circularly polarized (RHCP) or left-hand circularly polarized (LHCP)).” Ans.
10.
A review of Fullerton is in order. Fullerton discloses probe 531 having
two antenna subunits 700, one for transmitting a signal (transmit antenna 511)
and one for receiving a signal (receive antenna 512). See Fullerton ¶ 235;
Claims 41, 47. Each antenna subunit 700 has an antenna unit portion 710
which, as indicated above, “may be linearly polarized (e.g., horizontal or
vertical) or may be circularly polarized (e.g., right-hand circularly polarized
(RHCP) or left-hand circularly polarized (LHCP)), depending upon the type of

3 “RHCP” is shorthand for “right hand circularly polarized” and “LHCP” is
shorthand for “left hand circularly polarized.” Spec. 5:9–15.
Appeal 2021-003726
Application 14/841,275

5
antenna that is employed.” Fullerton ¶ 237. Addressing these different antenna
types, claim 49 of Fullerton recites, “wherein both the transmit antenna and the
receive antenna are one of linearly polarized and circularly polarized.” Thus,
and as understood, Fullerton teaches that both antenna may be linearly
polarized or both antenna may be circularly polarized. However, there is no
clear disclosure in Fullerton that the circularly polarized antennas can,
themselves, comprise differently polarized antennas (i.e., one left-hand and the
other right-hand). Thus, Fullerton discloses a system that teaches separate
transmitting and receiving antenna, but is silent as to any disclosure where the
circularly polarized antennas themselves employ a left-hand polarized antenna
and a right-hand polarized antenna.
At best, Fullerton discloses a possibility of one of the following
(excluding the possibilities of the antennas using linear polarization):
(1) both the transmitting and the receiving antennas use RHCP,
(2) both the transmitting and the receiving antennas use LHCP,
(3) the transmitting antenna uses RHCP while the receiving antennas use
LHCP, and
(4) the transmitting antenna uses LHCP while the receiving antennas use
RHCP.
Although Fullerton may likely suggest the above, Fullerton does not
“disclose” an embodiment that includes the recited combination as expressed by
the Examiner. Final Act. 3. As noted above, claim 49 of Fullerton recites
“wherein both the transmit antenna and the receive antenna are one of linearly
polarized and circularly polarized.” Emphasis added. Hence, at best––the
subject matter of claim 49 recites that both the transmitting and the receiving
antennas use circular polarization (rather than mixing linear polarization and
Appeal 2021-003726
Application 14/841,275

6
circular polarization). There is no further disclosure concerning the use of both
RHCP and LHCP.
We note that we do not reach the question of whether it would have been
obvious to modify Fullerton’s system by mixing the circular polarizations of the
transmitting and receiving antennas based upon the “type of antenna that is
employed.” Fullerton ¶ 237. The Examiner’s rejection is premised on finding
that Fullerton discloses such mixing of RHCP and LHCP antenna, rather than
concluding that it would have been obvious to further modify Fullerton’s
system to have such polarization mixing. See Final Act. 3. Furthermore, even
if obviousness (as compared to an actual teaching) is the basis of the
Examiner’s rejection (see Ans. 10, 11), there is no reasoning in the record
presently before us for modifying Fullerton’s system to mix the circular
polarizations of the two antenna, or evidence that it was common or known to
do so other than via the teachings of Appellant’s Specification.
Consequently, it is determined that the Examiner has incorrectly found
that Fullerton discloses a transmitting antenna and a receiving antenna in which
one uses a different circular polarization than the other. For this reason, the
rejections relying on Fullerton cannot stand. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, and 17 are not sustained.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 17 is
reversed.

Appeal 2021-003726
Application 14/841,275

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
8
103 Fullerton, Sachs 1, 2, 4, 5,
8
6, 17 103 Fullerton, Sachs, van
der Weide
6, 17
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–6,
8, 17

REVERSED