Ex Parte Hilsebecher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12227845 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/227,845 08/14/2009 Joerg Hilsebecher
26646 7590 08/02/2016
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1019115488 9128
EXAMINER
BARKER, MATTHEW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
uspto@kenyon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOERG HILSEBECHER and WOLF STEFFENS
Appeal2013-008215
Application 12/227,845
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joerg Hilsebecher and Wolf Steffens (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 7, 8, and
10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmidt (DE
10355796 Al; pub. June 9, 2005) and Klinnert (WO 03/081278 Al; pub.
Oct. 2, 2003). 1 Claims 1-6 and 9 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The Examiner indicates that "[t]he publications are in German," and that he
relies on the "English equivalent patents" to Schmidt (US 7,567,206 Bl; iss.
July 28, 2009) and Klinnert (US 7,109,916 B2; iss. Sept. 19, 2006) for the
rejection. See Final Act. 2 (mailed Aug. 28, 2012). Appellants acknowledge
that the Examiner's rejection "refers to [the] corresponding English language
Appeal2013-008215
Application 12/227,845
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to an angular resolution radar
sensor. See Spec. Title, Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 7, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
subject matter and recites:
7. A radar sensor, comprising:
multiple antenna elements adapted to transmit and
receive radar signals;
a transmitting and receiving element; and
an evaluation device adapted to determine an
azimuth angle of located objects based on a relationship
between signals received from different ones of the
antenna elements;
wherein the transmitting and receiving element is
adapted to supply to the antenna elements transmission
signals in parallel, the frequencies of which being offset
\1:1ith respect to one another, and the evaluation device is
adapted to differentiate between signals that were
transmitted by different ones of antenna elements based on
the frequency offset, and
wherein the magnitude of the frequency offset for at
least one of the antenna elements is at most equal to the
smallest of the transmitting frequencies supplied to the
multiple antenna elements.
documents" (i.e., the above-noted US patents) of Schmidt and Klinnert. See
Appeal Br. 6 (filed Feb. 27, 2013); see also id. at 2.
2
Appeal2013-008215
Application 12/227,845
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 7 recites, in relevant part, "wherein the magnitude
of the frequency offset for at least one of the antenna elements is at most
equal to the smallest of the transmitting frequencies supplied to the multiple
antenna elements." Appeal Br., Claims App. 1. The Examiner finds that
"Schmidt [] discloses that the magnitude of the frequency offset ( df) for at
least one of the antenna elements is at most equal to the smallest of the
transmitting frequencies." Final Act. 3 (citing Schmidt, Fig. 6).2 The
Examiner further finds that (1) "[c]onsidering the frequency axis (y-axis) of
Figure 6 [of Schmidt], the frequency offset with respect to one another ( df) is
clearly smaller than the smallest of the transmitting frequencies ( l 46A )"
(Final Act. 4); and (2) "Figure 6 [of Schmidt] clearly and reasonably
discloses and suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that the frequency
offset ( df) is smaller than the smallest of transmitting frequencies" because
"the spacing illustrated and most notably the break in the y-axis,
emphasizing that the offset ( df) is small in relation to the frequency l 46A"
(Ans. 2; see also id. at 3 the Examiner's annotated version of Figure 6 of
Schmidt).
Appellants contend that Schmidt fails to disclose that the magnitude
of the frequency offset for at least one of the antenna elements is at most
equal to the smallest of the transmitting frequencies supplied to the multiple
antenna elements. See Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellants contend:
2 The Examiner relies on Klinnert for disclosing "a related radar sensor where
cross-echo analysis is performed to determine the angle of detected objects."
Final Act. 2-3 (citing Klinnert, col. 8, 11. 11-34).
3
Appeal2013-008215
Application 12/227,845
[E]ven if the frequency spacing "df' of Schmidt were equal to
"at most the smallest difference between two frequencies of the
emission HF signal", so that there is no overlap between the
signals, it is plainly apparent that a frequency spacing that is
equal to the "smallest difference between signal frequencies" is
quite different from a frequency offset that is equal to the
"smallest signal frequency", as provided for in the context of the
claimed subject matter of claim 7.
Appeal Br. 7 (citing Schmidt, col. 6, 11. 37-55, Fig. 6); see also Reply Br. 3.
In other words, based on our understanding, Appellants contend that
frequency spacing "di' as illustrated in Figure 6 of Schmidt is different than
frequency offset.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner "is improperly assigning
relative values to the frequency offset ( df) and the transmitting frequency
( l 46A) that are not disclosed or inherent in Fig[ ure] 6 of the Schmidt
reference." Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants,
(1) Figure 6 of Schmidt "does not include any numerical values and is not
described as being [drawn 'to scale']"; and (2) the text of Schmidt
describing Figure 6 "makes it clear that [Figure 6] illustrates 'that no
overlapping occurs' between the signals, and therefore all that is required []
to illustrate this concept is that the signals in Fig[ ure] 6 be shown to be
completely separate from each other." Id. (emphasis omitted); see also
Reply Br. 3-4.
Schmidt discloses that "Frequency modulations 146A, 146B, 146C,
and 146D, running parallel (synchronized) to one another have a predefined
frequency spacing df." Schmidt, col. 6, 11. 42--44 (emphasis added). In other
words, the distance (spacing) between frequency modulations l 46A and
l 46B, l 46B and l 46C, and l 46C and l 46D is "predefined" (already
4
Appeal2013-008215
Application 12/227,845
established).3 The Examiner fails to explain how the predefined frequency
spacing df of frequency modulations l 46A, l 46B, l 46C, and l 46D of Figure
6 of Schmidt constitutes "a frequency offset." See Final Act. 3--4; see also
Ans. 2-3; Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. Schmidt does disclose "a frequency
offset 18." See Schmidt, col. 3, 11. 37-44 (emphasis omitted), Fig. 1.
However, the Examiner does not reference frequency offset 18 of Schmidt,
nor does the Examiner explain how frequency offset 18 of Schmidt relates to
the predefined frequency spacing df of frequency modulations l 46A, l 46B,
146C, and 146D of Figure 6 of Schmidt. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-3.
Moreover, the Examiner does not direct us to any discussion in Schmidt
regarding "the break in the y-axis," let alone that "the break in the y-axis,
emphasiz[ es] that the offset ( df) is small in relation to the frequency l 46A."
Ans. 2; see also id. at 3 the Examiner's annotated version of Figure 6 of
Schmidt. Consequently, based on the foregoing reasons, the Examiner fails
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings
of Schmidt and Klinnert render obvious the radar sensor of claim 7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 7 and its dependent claims 8 and 10-16 as unpatentable
over Schmidt and Klinnert.
3 Appellants' Specification describes that "[t]he distance [spacing] between
two neighboring antenna elements 12 [frequency curves] is approximately
0.5 A for example." Spec. 11, 11. 12-14, Fig. 2.
5
Appeal2013-008215
Application 12/227,845
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7, 8, and
10-16.
REVERSED
6