Rosemount Aerospace Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2021

2020001432 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 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.
15/216,398 07/21/2016 Mark Ray 94358US01-U100-012545 7544
113529 7590 06/29/2021
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
AMARA, MOHAMED K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2886
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2021 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MARK RAY and KAARE JOSEF ANDERSON
__________

Appeal 2020-001432
Application 15/216,398
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–20. 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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rosemount Aerospace
Inc. Appeal Brief dated June 24, 2019, at 2.
Appeal 2020-001432
Application 15/216,398

2

The claims on appeal are directed to a system and a method for measuring
cloud conditions. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A system for measuring cloud conditions comprising:
a laser diode configured to generate a pulse of light energy;
a transmitter fiber configured to receive the generated pulse of
light energy and to project the received pulse of light energy into a
cloud atmosphere, the projected pulse of light energy projected over a
field of view determined by a numerical aperture of a transmission
end of the transmitter fiber;
a receiver fiber having a reception end aligned proximate and
substantially parallel to the transmission end of the transmitter fiber,
the receiver fiber configured to receive a portion of the transmitted
pulse of light energy backscattered by the cloud atmosphere;
a detector configured to detect the portion of the transmitted
pulse of light energy received by the receiver fiber; and
a processor configured to calculate one or more metrics of the
cloud atmosphere based on the detected portion of the pulse of light
energy received and transmitted by the receiver fiber,
wherein a numerical aperture of the reception end of the
receiver fiber is substantially equal to the numerical aperture of the
transmission end of the transmitter fiber.
Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Michoud2 in
view of Chen;3

2 US 5,014,042, to Michoud et al., issued May 7, 1991 (“Michoud”).
3 US 2013/0113926 A1, to Chen et al., published May 9, 2013 (“Chen”).
Appeal 2020-001432
Application 15/216,398

3

(2) claims 1–6 and 13–164 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Michoud in view of Jung5 and Chen;
(3) claims 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Michoud in view of Chen, further in view of Ray;6 and
(4) claims 7–11 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Michoud in view of Jung and Chen, further in view of Ray.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Michoud teaches a system for measuring cloud
conditions. Final Act. 10–11. Michoud’s Figure 1, reproduced below, is a
diagram of an ice detector according to Michoud’s invention.

Michoud’s Figure 1 is a diagram of an ice detector
according to the disclosed invention.
Michoud discloses that the ice detector comprises electroluminescent
diode 1, photodiode 3, and “a bundle formed by optic fibers which are equally

4 In the Final Office Action dated February 12, 2019 (“Final Act.), the statement of
the rejection does not include claims 6 and 16. The Examiner, however, addresses
claims 6 and 16 in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 14–15. Therefore, the
statement of the rejection has been corrected to include claims 6 and 16.
5 US 2003/0011768 A1, to Jung et al., published January 16, 2003 (“Jung”).
6 US 2013/0103316 A1, to Ray et al., published April 25, 2013 (“Ray”).
Appeal 2020-001432
Application 15/216,398

4

divided . . . into an emitting bundle 21 and a receiving bundle 22, the two halves
being reunited into a single bundle 23 which reaches a prism 24.” Michoud, col. 2,
ll. 23, 29, 31–35. Michoud discloses:
The bundle 23 has a twofold role: through a part of its fibers, it
conveys the light coming from the diode 1 towards the face 24a of the
prism 24 and, through another part of its fibers, it conveys the light
coming from the face 24b of the prism towards the bundle 22 which
conveys it towards the photodiode 3. The light that reaches the face
24a, with a mean angle of incidence of 45 degrees, is either reflected
towards the face 24b, if the external environment at the face 24a
consists of air, or refracted towards the external environment if the
external environment, at the face 24a, consists of water or ice, the
refractive index of which is about 1.3. The result thereof is a
reduction, or even an elimination, of the light transmitted to the
photodiode 3.
Michoud, col. 2, ll. 43–57 (emphasis added).
According to the Examiner, the diagram reproduced below
provides [a] few examples of possibilities wherein light beams/rays
are refracted out of the optical fiber, and of which some of the light,
backscattering off water droplets and/or ice/dust particles, is directed
back towards the optical fiber end faces and within refraction
conditions (see Snell’s laws) that allow the penetration of some of the
light back into the fiber and towards the detector.
Final Act. 4 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-001432
Application 15/216,398

5

Examiner’s diagram illustrates possible refractions
and backscattering when using a multimode optical fiber.
The Examiner finds Michoud discloses a processor but finds Michoud does
not expressly disclose that the processor is “configured to calculate one or more
metrics of the cloud atmosphere based on the detected portion of the pulse of light
energy received and transmitted by the receiver fiber.” Final Act. 11, 12; see also
Spec. ¶ 29 (disclosing that cloud metrics include, for example, droplet size, total
water content, and ice/liquid phase ratio). The Examiner, nonetheless, finds Chen
discloses “a processor configured to calculate a super-cooled large droplet size
[i.e., a metric] based on the detected portion of the transmitted light energy
received by the receiver fiber.” Final Act. 12–13 (citing Chen ¶¶ 98, 99, 105–107).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Michoud’s system with the processor disclosed in Chen to
efficiently detect ice. Final Act. 13 (citing Chen ¶ 106).
Claim 1 recites a system comprising, inter alia,
[a] receiver fiber configured to receive a portion of the
transmitted pulse of light energy backscattered by the cloud
atmosphere;
a detector configured to detect the portion of the transmitted
pulse of light energy received by the receiver fiber; and
a processor configured to calculate one or more metrics of the
cloud atmosphere based on the detected portion of the pulse of light
energy received and transmitted by the receiver fiber.
Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added).7

7 Similarly, claim 12 recites a method comprising, inter alia, the steps of:
receiving a portion of the projected pulse of light energy
backscattered by the cloud atmosphere . . . ;
detecting the receive[d] portion of the projected pulse of light
energy; and
Appeal 2020-001432
Application 15/216,398

6

Although Michoud does not mention “backscattered” light in its disclosure,
there appears to be no dispute on this record that Michoud’s receiver fiber 22 is
configured to receive a portion of a transmitted pulse of light energy backscattered
by the cloud atmosphere as recited in claim 1.8 See Reply Br. 49 (appearing to
recognize that some of the backscattered photons may find their way back to
Michoud’s ice detector). The Examiner finds that Michoud’s system is capable of
collecting backscattered light pulses from the cloud environment, in addition to the
total internal reflection towards face 24b of prism 24, and calculating a metric such
as rain frequency based, at least in part, on the backscattered light pulses. Ans. 15.
The Appellant argues that stray light from the external environment (e.g.,
backscattered light) is a problem in Michoud’s system. Appeal Br. 11; see also
Reply Br. 4 (contending that photons that find their way back to the detector in
Michoud’s system are considered noise). Therefore, the Appellant argues that
modifying Michoud’s system, which is designed to detect light reflected within
prism 24, with Chen’s processor, which is designed to detect an image from an
external environment, would render Michoud’s system inoperable for its intended
purpose. Appeal Br. 12.

calculating one or more metrics of the cloud atmosphere based
on the detected receive[d] portion of the projected pulse of light
energy.
Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis added).
8 The Examiner explains that the phrase “configured to” in the claims on appeal
“only requires the ability to so perform [the recited function].” Final Act. 6; see
also Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (“the phrase ‘adapted to’ is frequently used to mean ‘made to,’
‘designed to,’ or ‘configured to’” and in a broader sense can mean “‘capable of’ or
‘suitable for’”).
9 Reply Brief dated December 16, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001432
Application 15/216,398

7

Consistent with the Appellant’s arguments, Michoud teaches that the effects
of stray light are removed by filter 41. See Michoud, col. 3, ll. 7–26 (disclosing
that disturbances due to stray light coming from the external environment are
removed). We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
backscattered light pulses from the cloud environment fall within the scope of
“stray light” disclosed in Michoud. Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence
does not support a finding that Michoud’s processor is “configured to calculate one
or more metrics of the cloud atmosphere based on the detected portion of the pulse
of light energy received and transmitted by the receiver fiber” wherein the received
and transmitted pulse of light energy includes “light energy backscattered by the
cloud atmosphere” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added).
Likewise, a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Michoud
teaches a step of “calculating one or more metrics of the cloud atmosphere based
on the detected receive[d] portion of the projected pulse of light energy” wherein
the detected received portion of the projected pulse of light energy includes “light
energy backscattered by the cloud atmosphere” as recited in claim 12. Appeal Br.
17.
The Examiner finds Chen teaches a processor having a configuration as
recited in claim 1 and a calculating step as recited in claim 12. Final Act. 9, 12–13.
However, the Examiner has not shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined Michoud and Chen as proposed by the Examiner in view of
Michoud’s disclosure that disturbances from the external environment (e.g.,
backscattered light pulses from the cloud environment) are removed by filter 41
and thus are not used to detect rain or ice in Michoud’s system.
For the reasons discussed above, the obviousness rejections of claims 1 and
12 are not sustained. The Examiner does not rely on the remaining prior art of
Appeal 2020-001432
Application 15/216,398

8

record to cure the deficiencies identified above in the combination of Michoud and
Chen. Therefore, the obviousness rejections of claims 2–11 and 13–20 also are not
sustained.
C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12 103 Michoud, Chen 12
1–6, 13–16 103 Michoud, Jung,
Chen
1–6, 13–16
17, 18, 20 103 Michoud, Chen,
Ray
17, 18, 20
7–11, 19 103 Michoud, Jung,
Chen, Ray
7–11, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED