BAE SYSTEMS plc

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 29, 2021

2020003436 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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.
15/999,355 08/17/2018 LESLIE CHARLES LAYCOCK BAE.XA4944US 3887
121361 7590 12/29/2021
BAE-UK / Finch & Maloney
Gateway One
50 Commercial, Suite 300
Manchester, NH 03101
EXAMINER
SANCHEZ, DIBSON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2021 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):
docketing@finchmaloney.com
nmaloney@finchmaloney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte LESLIE CHARLES LAYCOCK and
MICHAEL STEWART GRIFFITH
________________

Appeal 2020-003436
Application 15/999,355
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, 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 1–4, 6–12, 15, and 17–22. Claims 5 and
16 are canceled. Appeal Br. 17, 20 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that
claims 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final
Act. 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies BAE SYSTEMS plc as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003436
Application 15/999,355

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to optical sensing and
optical communications systems. Spec. 1.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named
inventor of each reference is listed):
Name Reference Date
Amir US 9,306,665 B1 Apr. 5, 2016
Yazaki US 2006/0062099 A1 Mar. 23, 2006
Ann US 2008/0166135 A1 July 10, 2008
Chou US 2010/0142972 A1 June 10, 2010
Damink US 2011/0076024 A1 Mar. 31, 2011
Kubo US 2016/0231547 A1 Aug. 11, 2016
Albert US 2016/0327639 A1 Nov. 10, 2016
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6–12, 15, and 17–22 as follows:
Claims Rejected 35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Citation
1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 15,
21, 22
103 Ann, Chou Final Act. 3–10
2, 3, 17 103 Ann, Chou, Kubo Final Act. 10–14
7 103 Ann, Chou, Damink Final Act. 14–15
10, 11 103 Ann, Chou, Albert Final Act. 16–18
12 103 Ann, Chou, Amir Final Act. 15–16
18–20 103 Ann, Chou, Yazaki Final Act. 18–19

Appeal 2020-003436
Application 15/999,355

3

ANALYSIS
Claim 1, which is illustrative with respect to claims 1–4, 6–12, 15, and
17–22, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized).
1. An optical system comprising:
a transmitter module configured to transmit a sequence of
optical pulses, wherein the transmitted sequence of optical
pulses is a sequence of optical pulses having decreasing
magnitudes;
a receiver module comprising one or more optical signal
detectors, the receiver module configured to receive the
sequence of optical pulses transmitted by the transmitter
module; and
one or more processors configured to process the sequence of
optical pulses received by the receiver module to select an
optical pulse from the received sequence of optical pulses based
on one or more predetermined criteria;
wherein the one or more predetermined criteria include a
criterion that the selected optical pulse does not saturate the one
or more optical signal detectors.
Final Act. 17 (Claims App.).
Claim 1 recites a transmitter module configured to transmit, a receiver
module configured to receive, and one or more processors configured to
process a sequence of optical pulses. The Specification illustrates an
example of a series of optical pulses in Figure 3, which is reproduced below.
Appeal 2020-003436
Application 15/999,355

4

The Specification’s Figure 3 illustrates a sequence of transmitted
optical pulses. Spec. 5. The pulses are illustrated as a series of thin lines,
spaced out sparsely. The height of each line indicates pulse intensity, with
the pulses, which are ordered from first pulse to last pulse, decreasing in
intensity. Spec. 7–8.
The Examiner finds that Ann’s indication light teaches or suggest the
claimed optical pulses. Final Act. 3 (citing Ann ¶¶ 25–27, Figs. 3–4). In
particular, the Examiner finds that Ann’s Figure 4 illustrates the claimed
pulses. Ans. 5. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Ann’s Figure
4. The Examiner’s annotated version of Ann’s Figure 4 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2020-003436
Application 15/999,355

5

The Examiner’s annotated version of Ann’s Figure 4 illustrates the
“power levels according to length of time of [an] indication light formed by
an indication light forming unit.” Ann ¶ 28. Each power level is illustrated
by a vertical bar that abuts with the adjacent power level bars, with the bars
ordered chronologically from left to right. The Examiner identifies the first
sixteen bars as a “sequence of optical pulses,” with the first bar labeled as
the “first optical pulse” and the sixteenth bar labeled as the “last optical
pulse.” The Examiner does not rely on the other power level bars illustrated
in Ann’s Figure 4.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because rather than teaching a
sequence of optical pulses, Ann teaches “a visible light signal that has its
power level adjusted to cause visible flickering of a continuous light
source.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that given the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, the claimed optical pulses each
refer to “an optical signal having non-zero optical power for a relatively
short or brief time duration, and having close to zero optical power at all
other times.” Id.
In response, the Examiner finds the “concept of combining pulses into
a group of continuous pulses is well-known in the art.” Ans. 5. In support of
this finding, the Examiner newly cites Wu (US 2012/0120723 A1; May 17,
2012). Id. (citing Wu ¶ 52). In particular, the Examiner reproduces and
annotates Wu Figure 6(a), which illustrates a sequence of pulses as a series
of bars similar to the bars shown in Ann’s Figure 4.
The Examiner’s reliance on Wu to show that the claimed “sequence of
optical pulses” encompasses Ann’s continuously (but decreasingly) powered
indication light does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness because
Appeal 2020-003436
Application 15/999,355

6

the Examiner does not show that Ann teaches or suggests a “sequence of
optical pulses” given the limitation’s broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the Specification. As Appellant correctly notes, Wu is not even
related to optical pulses. Reply Br. 4. Therefore, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner’s findings do not show that Ann teaches or suggests the
claimed “sequence of optical pulses.”
The Examiner does not show that the other cited references cure the
noted deficiency of Ann. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 2–4, 6–12, 15, and 17–22, which contain similar
recitations.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6, 8, 9,
15, 21, 22
103 Ann, Chou 1, 4, 6, 8, 9,
15, 21, 22
2, 3, 17 103 Ann, Chou, Kubo 2, 3, 17
7 103 Ann, Chou, Damink 7
10, 11 103 Ann, Chou, Albert 10, 11
12 103 Ann, Chou, Amir 12
18–20 103 Ann, Chou, Yazaki 18–20
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–12,
15, 17–22
REVERSED