Raytheon Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2020

2019003875 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2020)

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.
15/150,781 05/10/2016 Mitchell B. Haeri 15-8007-US-NP 1087
18510 7590 09/17/2020
Docket Clerk-Raytheon/MWM
P.O.Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
EXAMINER
MISLEH, JUSTIN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2020 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):
munckwilson@gmail.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MITCHELL B. HAERI
Appeal 2019-003875
Application 15/150,781
Technology Center 2600
BEFORE CAROLYN D. THOMAS, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–10, 12–17, and 19–23. Claims
5, 11, and 18 were previously cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003875
Application 15/150,781

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “counter-counter measure” technologies
intended to “dazzle imaging cameras” with lasers, thus interfering with the
ability of the cameras to image enemy targets. Spec.2 ¶¶ 2, 4. “[A]nti-
dazzle devices have been developed to attenuate the lasers.” Id. ¶ 2.
The Specification describes an “anti-dazzle imaging camera” which
“includes a photorefractive crystal that is wavelength-agnostic.” Id. ¶ 4.
The photorefractive crystal receives an optical beam and attenuates a laser
beam and passes an optical beam, without change, to an imaging detector.
Id. The wavelength-agnostic photorefractive crystal provides protection
again “dazzle from tunable laser radiation.” Id. ¶ 33. “A size of the
photorefractive crystal is substantially the same as a cross-section size of the
converging optical beam at a point where the converging optical beam enters
the photorefractive crystal.” Id. ¶ 25.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An anti-dazzle imaging camera, comprising:

an aperture configured to receive an optical beam through an
adjustable-sized opening;

a lens assembly configured to receive the optical beam from the
aperture and focus and converge the optical beam; and

2 We use “Spec.” to refer to the Specification filed May 10, 2016, “Final
Act.” to refer to the Final Action mailed June 8, 2018, “Appeal Br.” to refer
to the Appeal Brief filed November 13, 2018, “Ans.” to refer to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed February 27, 2019, and “Reply Br.” to refer to
the Reply Brief filed April 22, 2019.

Appeal 2019-003875
Application 15/150,781

3
a photorefractive crystal having a first surface and a second
surface, the photorefractive crystal configured (i) to receive
the converging optical beam from the lens assembly, (ii)
when the optical beam includes no laser radiation, to pass the
optical beam unchanged to an imaging detector, and (iii)
when the optical beam includes laser radiation in a visible to
near-infrared (NIR) spectral band, to attenuate the laser
radiation to generate a modified optical beam and to pass the
modified optical beam to the imaging detector,

wherein, to attenuate the laser radiation, the photorefractive
crystal is configured to (i) reflect, using Fresnel's reflection, a
portion of the laser radiation off the first surface of the
photorefractive crystal back into the photorefractive crystal
and (ii) write a grating in the photorefractive crystal due to
interference between the portion of the laser radiation
reflected off the first surface and a second portion of the laser
radiation entering the second surface of the photorefractive
crystal,

wherein the photorefractive crystal is wavelength-agnostic, and

wherein a size of the photorefractive crystal is substantially the
same as a cross-section size of the converging optical beam at
a point where the converging optical beam enters the
photorefractive crystal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sharp US 5,073,705 Dec. 17, 1991
Cook US 8,145,019 B1 Mar. 27, 2012
Pannell US 2013/0155485 A1 June 20, 2013
Evans US 2007/0243125 A1 Oct. 18, 2007
Miller US 5,449,904 Sept. 12, 1995

Appeal 2019-003875
Application 15/150,781

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 7–10, 13–17, and 19–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
as being unpatentable over Sharp, Cook, Pannell, and Evans. Final Act. 3–
11.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Sharp, Cook, Pannell, Evans, and Miller. Id. at 11–12.
OPINION
Issue: Does Sharp teach “a size of the photorefractive crystal is
substantially the same as a cross-section size of the converging optical beam
at a point where the converging optical beam enters the photorefractive
crystal” (“substantially the same limitation”), as recited in representative
claim 1?

The Examiner relies on Sharp for substantially the same limitation.
Final Act. 4–5 (citing Sharp, Fig. 1, 4:15–27 (describing Fig. 1). Sharp’s
Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Figure 1 is a schematic showing a photorefractive crystal system. Sharp,
2:33–34, 48–49.
The Examiner determines that Figure 1 of Sharp shows that “the
photorefractive crystal is slightly larger than a cross-section of the input
Appeal 2019-003875
Application 15/150,781

5
radiation at a point where the input radiation enters the photorefractive
crystal.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner further determines that the term
“substantially the same” is interpreted broadly and “does not preclude
photorefractive crystals that are slightly larger than a cross-section size of
the optical beam.” Id. Thus, even though Sharp’s “slightly larger”
relationship between the input radiation and the refractive crystal does not
expressly disclose the substantially the same limitation, the limitation falls
within the scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “substantially.”
Id.
Appellant argues that “Figure 1 of Sharp shows that the
photorefractive crystal is substantially larger than the cross-section size of
the input radiation at a point where the input radiation enters the
photorefractive crystal.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues “[n]othing in
Sharp teaches or suggests that the photorefractive crystal is slightly larger
than a cross-section size of the input radiation at a point where the input
radiation enters the photorefractive crystal.” Id. at 13–14.
In the Answer, the Examiner contends that the Specification does not
use “substantially” in connection with the size of the refractive crystal. Ans.
15–16. The Examiner does acknowledge the Specification describes that
“photorefractive crystal 102 may be matched to the footprint of the optical
beam 106 at the point of insertion, as illustrated in FIGURE 2.” Id. at 16
(citing Sharp ¶ 25). Relying in part on dictionary definition, the Examiner
contends that “substantially means ‘being largely but not wholly that which
is specified.’” Id. (citing Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d.
Web. 24 July 2018). The Examiner determines the dictionary definition is
the ordinary and customary meaning of “substantially.” Id. The Examiner
Appeal 2019-003875
Application 15/150,781

6
determines that “slightly larger” is equivalent to the construction of
“substantially” and therefore Sharp discloses the substantially the same
limitation. Id.
In its Reply, Appellant contends the Examiner’s construction of
“substantially” “is not consistent with the Appellant’s specification and
drawings.” Reply Br.2. Regardless of the construction, Appellant argues
Figure 1 of Sharp “does not disclose or suggest a photorefractive crystal that
is slightly larger than a cross-section size of an optical beam.” Id. at 3.
Our reviewing court has determined the term “substantially uniform
thickness,” meant “of largely or approximately uniform thickness.” Cordis
Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2003).
Although this interpretation is similar to the Examiner’s construction, we are
not persuaded that Sharp discloses the substantially the same limitation.
We specifically determine that the predicate for the Examiner’s
determination is that Sharp discloses that the photorefractive crystal is
“slightly larger” than the “where the optical beam enters the photorefractive
crystal.” We agree with the Appellant that Sharp discloses that the
photorefractive crystal is in fact substantially larger than the point where the
input radiation enters the photorefractive crystal. See Appeal Br. 12.
Indeed, based on Sharp’s Figure 1, the optical beam has virtually no cross
section.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 14 claim the same cross-section
relationship between the optical beam and the photorefractive crystal and
stand rejected for the same reasons as discussed in connection with claim 1.
Final Act. 4–9. The rejections of claims 8 and 14 are likewise not sustained.
Appeal 2019-003875
Application 15/150,781

7
The remaining claims, 2–4, 6–7, 9–10, 12–13, 15–17, and 19–23, all depend
from claims 1, 8, or 14 and the rejections of those claims are not sustained.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–10,
13–17, 19–
23
103 Sharp, Pannell,
Cook, Evans
1–4, 7–10,
13–17, 19–
23
6, 12 103 Sharp, Pannell,
Cook, Evans,
Miller
6, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–10,
12–17, 19–
23

REVERSED