Ex Parte Himmelstoss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2017

14634083 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2017)

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.
14/634,083 02/27/2015 Armin HIMMELSTOSS BOSC.P7547US.D1 4866
24972 7590 10/24/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
BARKER, MATTHEW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2017 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARMIN HIMMELSTOSS,
JUERGEN HILDEBRANDT, and STEFAN HEILMANN
Appeal 2017-000355
Application 14/634,0831
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 13—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the invention “relates to FMCW [(frequency
modulated continuous wav)] radar systems.” Spec. 1,11. 10-13. Claims 13
1 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest... is Robert Bosch
GmbH.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-000355
Application 14/634,083
and 15 are the only independent claims on appeal. We reproduce claim 13,
below, as illustrative of the appealed claims.
13. An FMCW radar system, comprising:
a transceiver unit configured to transmit radar signals
which are modulated according to at least one modulation
parameter, and to receive radar signals which are reflected from
objects; and
an interference detector configured to detect interferences
in the received radar signals based on a comparison of reception
power of the received radar signals to at least one frequency-
dependent reception power threshold value, wherein the at least
one frequency-dependent reception power threshold value is set
based on the at least one modulation parameter and at least one
of a transmission power of the transceiver unit, an antenna output
of the transceiver unit, a maximally occurring radar backscatter
cross section of expected objects, a speed at which the FMCW
radar system moves, and data of previously detected objects.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART2
The Examiner rejects claims 13—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kamimura (JP 409090024 A, pub. Apr. 4, 1997).
ANALYSIS
Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner’s Final
Office Action and Answer, and Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief,
Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 13—
2 Although the Final Office Action includes an obviousness rejection of
claims 17 and 18 (see Final Action 3—4), the Examiner withdraws the
rejection because “the claims have been canceled by [Appellants in the]
[A]fter [F]inal [AJmendment of 2/4/2016” (Answer 2).
2
Appeal 2017-000355
Application 14/634,083
16 as anticipated by Kamimura. Thus, for the reasons discussed below, we
sustain the rejection.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because
“Kamimura . . . does not identically disclose (or even suggest) the features in
which ‘the at least one frequency-dependent reception power threshold
value’ is set based on both (i) ‘the at least one modulation parameter’ and
(ii) ‘at least one of a transmission power.’” See, e.g., Reply Br. 3, 6
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that either of the first and second
thresholds, discussed in Kamimura’s paragraph 17, teaches the claimed
threshold value. See, e.g., Final Action 4; Advisory Action 2; Answer 3.
Appellants do not explain persuasively why the Examiner’s specific finding
that Kamimura’s first and second thresholds teach the claimed threshold
value is incorrect. The Examiner also finds that i) because Kamimura’s
paragraph 17 teaches that “‘the average value of the power of the output of
the radar’ [is] used to determine the thresholds of Kamimura[, Kamimura]
clearly anticipates [claim 13’s] requirement that power threshold value[ ] be
based ... on the ‘transmission power of the transceiver unit,”’ and ii)
Kamimura’s paragraph 4 teaches “threshold values . . . [that] are . . .
‘frequency dependent,’ [and] set ‘based on the at least one modulation
parameter,’ because the thresholds depend on whether the transmission
frequency is rising or falling” as claimed. Answer 3 (citation omitted).
Appellants do not explain persuasively why these specific determinations
made by the Examiner are incorrect.
Instead, Appellants’ arguments are directed to the Examiner’s alleged
failure to support the findings with adequate proof. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 6—
8. We determine, however, that the Examiner’s findings are sufficient to
3
Appeal 2017-000355
Application 14/634,083
support the rejection, and Appellants do not sufficiently rebut the rejection.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 13—16.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13—16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4