Rosemount Aerospace Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 29, 20212020001432 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation