Ex Parte Leach et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201311699638 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/699,638 01/29/2007 Richard R. Leach JR. IL-11613 7894 86571 7590 03/28/2013 LLNS / John P. Wooldridge John H. Lee, Assistant Laboratory Counsel L-703, P.O Box 808 Livermore, CA 94551 EXAMINER LOBO, IAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD R. LEACH, JR., FARANAK NEKOOGAR and PETER C. HAUGEN ____________ Appeal 2011-001688 Application 11/699,638 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, JEREMY M. PLENZLER and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001688 Application 11/699,638 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-5, 8-22 and 25-33. Claims 6, 7, 23 and 24 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for monitoring an area of interest employing low power ultra wideband (UWB) radar motion sensors. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for monitoring an area of interest, comprising: placing a plurality of low power ultra wideband (UWB) radar motion sensors in an area of interest; transmitting an UWB radar signal in said area and receiving said signal with at least one motion sensor of said motion sensors to produce a received signal; analyzing said received signal to determine whether a movement has occurred within said area and producing an alarm signal if a motion has occurred within said area; communicating said alarm signal to a wireless ad hoc network to produce a forwarded alarm signal, wherein said wireless ad hoc network comprises a mother node and a plurality of nodes, wherein the step of communicating said alarm signal to a wireless ad hoc network includes transmitting said alarm signal by UWB radar to said mother-node; and Appeal 2011-001688 Application 11/699,638 3 transmitting said forwarded alarm signal to a destination. THE REJECTION The Examiner has rejected claims 1-5, 8-22, and 25-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Silverstrim (US 7,119,676 B1, issued Oct. 10, 2006) in view of McEwan (US 5,361,070, issued Nov. 1, 1994). Ans. 4. The Examiner withdrew, on appeal, a rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Albert (US 2008/0007404 A1, published Jan. 10, 2008) in view of McEwan. Ans. 3. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that neither Silverstrim nor McEwan discloses the use of ultra-wide band (UWB) radar to communicate a signal, and that independent claims 1 and 18 recite that an alarm signal produced by a UWB radar motion sensor is communicated/transmitted to a mother-node of a wireless ad hoc network by UWB radar. Appeal Br. 4-5. The Examiner’s grounds for rejection do not include any findings that this claim feature is disclosed by either of the references, and present no reasoning supporting any conclusion that such would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 4-5. In replying to Appellants’ above argument, the Examiner maintains that the argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims, in that “it is the alarm signal that is communicated and not the UWB radar signal.” Ans. 6. This position fails to take into account that claims 1 and 18 call for the alarm signal to be communicated by UWB radar. Appeal 2011-001688 Application 11/699,638 4 The Examiner further maintains that, in the proposed combination of the teaching of Silverstrim and McEwan, there would be a “concomitant transmitting of UWB radar signals, receiving the UWB radar signals, analyzing the signals and producing of alarm being part of a UWB radar motion detection system and method.” Ans. 6. The mention here of the transmitting and receiving of UWB radar signals is directed to the function of a UWB radar motion sensor determining whether motion of an object has occurred, and not to the communicating or transmitting of any alarm signal. The Examiner’s statement that producing an alarm is “a part of a UWB radar motion detection system and method” (id.) does not establish that the communication or transmission of that alarm signal to a wireless ad hoc network is effected by UWB radar. Silverstrim appears to disclose that communication between the gateway node (which is in communication with a wireless ad hoc network) and the radar motion sensors is via an Ethernet or RS-232 serial interface, and not via radar signal transmission and reception. Silverstrim, col. 7, l. 65; col. 8, ll. 62-63. McEwan does not appear to disclose that the UWB radar motion sensor therein is in communication with a wireless ad hoc network. Accordingly, it is not evident from the references and the Examiner’s proposed combination of the references that the resulting system and method would involve transmitting an alarm signal by UWB radar, as claimed. The rejection of claims 1-5, 8-22 and 25-33 as being unpatentable over Silverstrim in view of McEwan is not sustained. Appeal 2011-001688 Application 11/699,638 5 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 8-22 and 25-33 is reversed. REVERSED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation