SensL Technologies Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2021

2021001347 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
15/383,328 12/19/2016 Salvatore Gnecchi SLI-076P01US 4018
132167 7590 10/01/2021
SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC (PP)
5005 E. McDowell Road
Maildrop A700
Phoenix, AZ 85008
EXAMINER
BAGHDASARYAN, HOVHANNES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2021 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):
patents@onsemi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SALVATORE GNECCHI and
JOHN CARLTON JACKSON
Appeal 2021-001347
Application 15/383,328
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, 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 26, 27, and 29–45. Claims 1–25 and 28
were canceled during prosecution. See Appeal Br. 14–16. 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 SensL
Technologies Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-001347
Application 15/383,328
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a LiDAR apparatus. Claim 26, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
26. A LiDAR apparatus comprising:
an eye-safe laser source for emitting laser pulses;
a Geiger mode detector for detecting reflected photons in
response to the laser pulses;
optics between the eye-safe laser source and the Geiger
mode detector; and
a controller for controlling the eye-safe laser source,
wherein the controller sets a pulse width of the laser pulses that
is calculated using a desired range accuracy of the LiDAR
apparatus, and controls a peak power and pulse repetition rate to
achieve a predetermined average power at the pulse width so set.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lee US 2002/0175294 A1 Nov. 28, 2002
Borowski US 2013/0300838 A1 Nov. 14, 2013
Eichenholz US 2018/0364356 Dec. 20, 2018
Newport Photonics Technical Note #1, November, 2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 26, 30–35, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Borowski, Eichenholz, and Newport. Final Act. 2.
Claims 27, 29, 36–42, 44, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Borowski, Eichenholz, and Lee.2 Final Act. 4.

2 The Examiner lists only claims 27 and 44 in the heading of the rejection,
but specifically addresses each of the other listed claims in explaining the
rejection. Final Act. 4–5.
Appeal 2021-001347
Application 15/383,328
3
OPINION
Obviousness over Borowski
Appellant asserts that the Examiner erred in interpreting Borowski as
teaching the claimed “controller sets a pulse width of the laser pulses that is
calculated using a desired range accuracy of the LiDAR apparatus.” Reply
Br. 2–3. As Appellant correctly notes, the portion of Borowski relied upon
by the Examiner actually teaches that “[t]he duration of the pulse is
preferentially chosen to be lower than the expected final uncertainty on the
3D depth.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Borowski ¶ 14). Appellant points out that
the Examiner’s cited excerpt of Borowski’s ¶ 14 omits this key portion. Id.
Appellant also informs us that “[t]he ‘final uncertainty on the 3D depth’ is
what the present application calls the ‘range accuracy.’” Reply Br. 3. Thus,
Appellant argues that “Borowski does not use this range accuracy to
calculate the pulse width but to limit the pulse width” and that “[t]he actual
pulse width is set to some value lower than the value that corresponds to the
final uncertainty/range accuracy.” Id.
In responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner takes the
position that Borowski discloses the disputed limitation in paragraph 14
because Borowski’s desired accuracy needs to be selected first, “and then
the pulse width needs to be set in such a way that condition of not limiting
the accuracy is satisfied.” Ans. 3. This response, however, does not
adequately address the disputed claim limitation. Appellant has made a
cogent argument that Borowski, as relied upon in the rejections, does not
teach setting a pulse width that is calculated using a desired range accuracy,
but, instead, uses the range accuracy as a limit on the pulse duration. As
such, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not met the burden of
adequately explaining how the cited prior art teaches this disputed limitation,
Appeal 2021-001347
Application 15/383,328
4
which is required by all the current claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
26, 30–
35, 43
103 Borowski,
Eichenholz,
Newport
26, 30–35,
43
27, 29,
36–42,
44, 45
103 Borowski,
Eichenholz, Lee
27, 29,
36–42, 44,
45
Overall
Outcome
26, 27,
29–45

REVERSED