Ex Parte PieralliDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 201311832780 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/832,780 08/02/2007 INV001Moreno Pieralli 10-0189.3 6717 91959 7590 03/19/2013 GE GPO- Transportation- The Small Patent Law Group PO Box 861 2 Corporate Drive, Suite 648 Shelton, CT 06484 EXAMINER SWARTHOUT, BRENT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/19/2013 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 MORENO PIERALLI ____________ Appeal 2010-010069 Application 11/832,780 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1 and 2, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See App. Br. 2-3.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse and institute a new ground of rejection within the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 26, 2010 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 27, 2010 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed June 28, 2010 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2010-010069 Application 11/832,780 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to automatically detecting intrusion in an off-limits zone using a microwave detection system. See Spec. ¶ 0002. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 1. A microwave detection system for automatically detecting intrusion in an off-limits zone, said system comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit a signal along a path likely to encounter an intruder to the off-limits zone; a modulating reflector configured to receive the transmitted signal to generate a modulated signal having a modulation frequency in a range that is different with respect to a Doppler-effect frequency that results from the intruder moving in the off-limits zone and having a characteristic introduced by said modulating reflector, said modulating reflector configured to transmit the modulated signal; a receiver located to receive the modulated signal; and a processor coupled to the transmitter and to the receiver, said processor configured to process the received modulated signal and configured to initiate an action as a function of the characteristic in the received modulated signal. THE REJECTION Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwartz (US 3,314,066; issued Apr. 11, 1967) and Gerhard (US 2,085,798; issued July 6, 1937). See Ans. 3-6. Appeal 2010-010069 Application 11/832,780 3 ISSUE The dispositive issue raised by Appellant’s contentions is whether Schwartz and Gerhard teach “a modulating reflector configured . . . to generate a modulated signal having a modulation frequency in a range that is different with respect to a Doppler-effect frequency that results from [an] intruder moving in [an] off-limits zone,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 3-7. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Schwartz teaches a microwave detection system as recited in claim 1 “except for specifically stating that the range of the modulation frequency is different with respect to a Doppler-effect frequency resulting from an intruder moving in the off-limits zone, or that a processor performs the processing functions.” Ans. 3-4. The Examiner concludes that processors were well-known for processing data, and thus the use of a processor would have been obvious in light of Schwartz’s disclosure of a circulator and a mixer that perform processing functions, see Ans. 4, a conclusion that Appellant does not challenge, see App. Br. 3-7. The Examiner finds that Gerhard teaches a microwave detection system in which a signal returned from a reflector is modulated at a different frequency than the unmodulated signal returned from an object to be detected. See Ans. 4 (citing Gerhard, col. 4, ll. 1-13). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modulate the signal transmitted by Schwartz’s reflector to be of a different frequency than the signal reflected from the object to be detected (e.g., an intruder) as suggested by Appeal 2010-010069 Application 11/832,780 4 Gerhard in order to more easily distinguish between different types of signals and to more accurately detect the intruder. See Ans. 4-5. Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s conclusion, arguing instead that Gerhard does not specify frequencies for its modulated signal. See App. Br. 4-6. Instead, Appellant points out, Gerhard states that its modulation frequency is “chosen at will,” and the modulation frequency “will have no effect upon the accuracy of the direction and distance determinations.” Ans. 4 (quoting Gerhard, col. 3, ll. 31-36 (emphases Appellant’s)). Thus, Appellant argues, Gerhard “is inapposite to improving an intruder detection capability by ‘generat[ing] a modulated signal having a modulation frequency in a range that is different with respect to a Doppler-effect frequency that results from the intruder moving in the off-limits Zone.’” App. Br. 6. We agree with Appellant. Assuming that Schwartz is silent as to the frequency of the modulation signal, we see nothing in Gerhard to suggest selecting, over any other frequency, a modulation frequency that is different from a Doppler-effect frequency resulting from a moving intruder. The Examiner also finds that the Doppler effect was well-known and that Doppler-effect frequencies caused by a moving intruder in Schwartz’s system would be variable. See Ans. 5. As such, the modulated frequency transmitted by the reflecting antenna would be different from the Doppler- effect frequency caused by a moving intruder “at least part of the time.” Ans. 5-6. We agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 3-5) that reading claim 1 to encompass a modulation signal that is the same as a Doppler-effect frequency resulting from an intruder at one instant and different from the Doppler-effect frequency resulting from the intruder a moment later would Appeal 2010-010069 Application 11/832,780 5 be inconsistent with the Specification. Rather, the Specification describes choosing a modulation frequency above the expected range of Doppler- effect frequencies in order to avoid interference from “echoes that may be due to Doppler effects from moving objects.” Spec. ¶ 0032. Moreover, claim 1 recites choosing a modulated frequency “in a range that is different with respect to a Doppler-effect frequency that results from the intruder moving in the off-limits zone . . . .” In light of the Specification, this language is reasonably read as directed to choosing a modulation frequency in a different range of frequencies than a range of frequencies expected to be introduced by a moving intruder. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION WITHIN 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schwartz. The Examiner finds that Schwartz teaches: (1) a microwave transmitter (item 21) configured to transmit a signal along a path likely to encounter an intruder to an off-limits zone (Ans. 3, citing Schwartz, col. 3, ll. 50-60); (2) a modulating reflector (item 23) configured to receive the transmitted signal and to generate and transmit a modulated signal, the transmitted signal having a characteristic introduced by the modulating reflector (Ans. 3-4, citing Schwartz, col. 3, ll. 57-67); and (3) a receiver (item 21) located to receive the modulated signal (Ans. 4, citing Schwartz, col. 3, ll. 57-60). We agree with and adopt those findings. As explained above, the Examiner concludes, and Appellant does not contest, that it would have been obvious to use a processor coupled to the transmitter and Appeal 2010-010069 Application 11/832,780 6 receiver to process the received modulated signal and initiate an action as a function of the characteristic in the received modulated signal. See Ans. 4. We agree with that conclusion. Contrary to the Examiner, however, we further find that Schwartz teaches that the modulated signal has “a modulation frequency in a range that is different with respect to a Doppler-effect frequency that results from the intruder moving in the off-limits zone . . . .” According to Appellant’s Specification, frequency modulation creates sidebands in the modulated signal that are not in the carrier signal. See Spec. ¶ 0029. These sidebands can be filtered and analyzed to detect the presence or absence of an object (e.g., an intruder). See Spec. ¶ 0031. Because moving objects can introduce “echoes” at Doppler-effect frequencies, a modulation frequency is selected to be at a higher frequency than these Doppler-effect frequencies. See Spec. ¶ 0032. In other words, if the modulated signal is chosen to be in this higher frequency range, the Doppler-effect frequencies introduced by a moving intruder will not be confused with the modulated signal. The Specification gives examples of modulation frequencies above 4 KHz as being higher than the Doppler-effect frequencies. See id. Similarly, Schwartz notes that systems that detect intruders based on Doppler shifts are prone to “false alarms” caused by movement outside the region being monitored. Schwartz, col. 1, ll. 44-49. Schwartz, in contrast, describes a system that is “almost completely insensitive to movements outside the region.” Schwartz, col. 1, ll. 50-54. Schwartz avoids this problem by choosing modulation frequencies where “if such objects happen to reflect the energy wave back toward the receiver, this reflected wave will not include modulation energy at the same frequencies as that of the Appeal 2010-010069 Application 11/832,780 7 modulation energy produced at the target.” Schwartz, col. 2, ll. 22-26. According to Schwartz, the received signal includes “modulation energy, i.e. energy at certain sideband frequencies” chosen such that “spurious reflections, i.e. reflections of the transmitted energy wave from objects outside the region 31 will not affect the alarm since it is highly unlikely that such reflected energy will have the frequency of the modulation energy.” Schwartz, col. 4, ll. 21-24, 44-48. In other words, the modulation frequency is chosen to be in a range different from that caused by the Doppler effect resulting from a moving object or person. More specifically, Schwartz teaches a modulation frequency of 30 MHz. See Schwartz, col. 5, ll. 27-29 (“a 30 mc.2 oscillator 43 is used”); col. 5, ll. 50-51 (“These sideband frequencies are 10,030 mc. and 9,970 mc.”); col. 5, l. 71-col. 6, l. 2. Schwartz’s 30 MHz is much greater than 4 KHz, which the Specification states is greater than (and thus different from) the range of Doppler-effect frequencies resulting from moving intruders, see Spec. ¶ 0032. Therefore, Schwartz teaches and suggests “a modulated signal having a modulation frequency in a range that is different with respect to a Doppler-effect frequency that results from the intruder moving in the off- limits zone.” Accordingly, claim 1 is obvious over Schwartz. The Examiner concludes that the particular frequency range recited in claim 2 is “an obvious matter of engineering choice, merely depending on what frequency was found to be most effective in a given detection area, taking into consideration climate, obstacles, interfering signals, etc.” 2 “mc.” is an abbreviation for megacycles-per-second, see Schwartz, col. 5, ll. 28-29 (“hence the phase shift takes place 30 million times per second”), a nomenclature used before “Hertz” was widely used. Appeal 2010-010069 Application 11/832,780 8 Ans. 5-6. Appellant does not separately argue claim 2 and thus does not contest this conclusion. See App. Br. 7. Accordingly, claim 2 is obvious over Schwartz. ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 2 is reversed. We enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Appeal 2010-010069 Application 11/832,780 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation