Ex Parte Stern et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

11305267 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2012)

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.
11/305,267 12/16/2005 Ari K. Stern SAK-100-A 8397
79389 7590 08/29/2012
The Weintraub Group, P.L.C.
24901 Northwestern Highway
Suite 311
Southfield, MI 48075
EXAMINER
BARKER, MATTHEW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ARI K. STERN and AUDRA R. STERN
____________________

Appeal 2010-004540
Application 11/305,267
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004540
Application 11/305,267

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of
claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a radar detector that can
determine the location of a radar signal and filter the signal based upon a list
of known false radar sources.” Spec., para. [0002]. Claims 1 and 3 are the
independent claims on appeal, and claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A radar detector and location unit comprising:
at least three sensors disposed in the unit, the sensors
being configured to detect a radar signal, the at least three
sensors being aligned in a non-linear arrangement;
a position receiver configured to determine a position of
the radar detector;
a data storage device configured to store data related to
the locations of a known series of radar emissions sites;
a processor connected to the at least three sensors, the
position receiver, and the data storage device;
the processor being configured to:
(a) determine the distance and direction to the
source of the radar signal relative to the radar detector by
calculating time values representative of the first
detection of the radar signal by at least two of the
sensors;
(b) determine the location of the source of the
radar signal based on data supplied by at least two of the
sensors and the position of the radar detector; and

1 This claim is reformatted (line breaks and indentation); however, the text
of this claim is unaltered. See App. Br. 17, Claims App’x.
Appeal 2010-004540
Application 11/305,267

3
(c) compare the location of the source of the radar
signal with the locations in the known series of radar
emissions sites;
a user-activated input device which is activated to store
the location of the source of the radar signal as one of the
locations of the known radar emission sites in the data storage
device; and
further wherein the entire unit is disposed in a single
vehicle.

REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement.
2. Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Iwakini
(US 6,483,452 B1; iss. Nov. 19, 2002), Jones (US 4,393,382; iss. Jul. 12,
1983), and Singer (US 2002/0135504 A1; pub. Sep. 26, 2002).
3. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Orr (US 6,670,905 B1; iss. Dec. 30, 2003) and Jones.
4. Claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Orr, Jones, and Iwakini.

OPINION
Claim 7, written description
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites “a radar detection CPU
being configured to provide navigational information to a user of the radar
detector, wherein the radar detection CPU directs the user to avoid locations
known to be driving hazards or police stakeouts.”
Appeal 2010-004540
Application 11/305,267

4
The Examiner found that Appellants’ disclosure demonstrates
Appellants possessed a CPU that provides information about driving hazards
and potential police stakeout locations, but does not disclose directing the
user to avoid such as called for in claim 7. Ans. 3 (citing Spec., para.
[00035]). The Examiner suggests that the phrase “directs the user to avoid”
be replaced with “indicates.” Id.
Appellants argue that the phrase “directs the user to avoid locations
known to be driving hazards or police stakeouts,” as recited in claim 7, does
not constitute new matter, and offers to amend the claim as proposed by the
Examiner, upon remand of the application from the Board to the Examiner.
App. Br. 10.2
Appellants’ conclusory assertion that the contested phrase is not new
matter does not cogently identify or explain an error in the rejection by the
Examiner. See Ans. 9 (pointing out the lack of argument by Appellants).
Further, the Specification describes that the computer (presumably including
a CPU) “provides the user with location-specification information about
driving hazards and potential police stakeout locations.” Spec., para.
[00035]. We cannot discern, nor have Appellants identified, any disclosure
that the CPU directs the user to avoid such areas as called for in claim 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7.

2 Appellants’ Reply Brief does not make further argument related to this
rejection. Reply Br. 1-8.
Appeal 2010-004540
Application 11/305,267

5
Claims 1-9 over Iwakini, Jones, and Singer
Claims 1, 2, and 7
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, and 7 as a group, and we select claim 1
as representative. App. Br. 10-13; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellants argue that, “[t]he Examiner concedes that Iwakini does not
disclose a processor or three sensors as required by Claims 1, 2, and 7,” and
argues that Jones and Singer also do not disclose the claimed processor.
App. Br. 10; see also App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 4-7. We discern no such
concession. To the contrary, the Examiner found, and we agree, that Iwakini
discloses a processor (microcontroller 301) connected to a sensor (detecting
means 100), but does not disclose that the sensor comprises at least three
sensors. Ans. 4; Office Action dated Jan. 16, 2009, at 3; see also Iwakini,
col. 3, ll. 36-43; col. 7, ll. 14-16; fig. 1.
Appellants also argue that Jones does not disclose determining “the
location of the source of the radar signal based on data supplied by at least
two of the sensors and the position of the radar detector” as recited in claim
1. App. Br. 11 (referring to this as the “second step”); Reply Br. 4. The
Examiner concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to determine the location of a radar signal in such a manner
by modifying Iwakini’s method to include triangulation as taught by Jones.
Ans. 4-5, 10-11. Thus, Appellants’ contention is unpersuasive because it
attacks the reference (Jones) individually where the rejection is based upon a
combination of references (Iwakini and Jones3). See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981).

3 The modification over Singer is not relevant to this analysis.
Appeal 2010-004540
Application 11/305,267

6
Similarly, Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to
modify Jones to make such as determination, “because the location of the
given airport is already known, and therefore there would have been no
reason to modify Jones as such.” App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 5. The
proposed combination is not a modification of Jones’s direction finding and
ranging system for an aircraft. See Ans. 4-5; see also Jones, col. 3, ll. 63-67;
fig. 1. Rather, the proposed combination is a modification of Iwakini’s radar
detection and location unit for a vehicle based upon triangulation as
disclosed in Jones. Ans. 4-5; 10; see also Iwakini, col. 1, ll. 7-15.
Therefore, Appellants’ argument is unconvincing because it does not address
the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
According to Appellants, it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Iwakini and Jones
because “Jones pertains to a divergent technical field.” App. Br. 12. We
agree with the Examiner that Jones and the claimed invention are in the
same field of endeavor, namely, radio wave detection.4 See Ans. 12; see
also Spec., para. [0002] (“the present invention is directed to a radar
detector”); Jones, col. 1, ll. 7-10 (“This invention pertains to systems for
passively determining the direction of arrival and range of radiant energy
emitted by a distant, scanning source, such as a radar transmitter.”).
Appellants assert that Singer only discloses storing the location of a
radar signal source via a variety of non-user activated methods (e.g., CD,

4 To the extent that Appellants argument can be seen as a contention that
Iwakini and Jones are in divergent fields, the correct focus of the analogous
art test is not whether the prior art references are analogous to each other,
but rather the correct focus is whether the references are analogous art to the
claimed subject matter. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appeal 2010-004540
Application 11/305,267

7
over the internet, during manufacture), but does not disclose a user activated
input device “which is activated to store the location of the source of the
radar signal as one of the locations of the known radar emission sites in the
data storage device,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12-13.
We agree with Appellants that Singer discloses non-user activated
methods of storing the location of the source of a radar signal. Singer, paras.
[0028], [0029], [0030]. However, Singer also discloses that the system can
be programmed so that detector A detects a radar signal, determines it is a
false alarm by operator input, and stores that information for future reference
(e.g., sending the location and false alarm status to detector B). Singer,
paras. [0049]-[0052]. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Singer
discloses a user (operator) activated input device (Detector A) that is
activated to store the location of the source of the radar signal (the location
and false alarm status) as one of the locations of the known radar emission
sites in the data storage device. See Ans. 5, 12. The fact that Singer
discloses non-user activated forms of input (e.g., a CD) does not negate the
Examiner’s finding that Singer also discloses user activated input as
claimed.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 7.

Claims 3-6, 8, and 9
Appellants argue claims 3-6, 8, and 9 as a group, and we select claim
3 as representative. App. Br. 13-14; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Independent claim 3 is directed to a method of determining a location
of a radar emission by a radar detector that includes the steps of
“determining by the user if the radar emission is a valid police radar signal;
Appeal 2010-004540
Application 11/305,267

8
and storing the radar emission location in the list of known radar source
locations when the radar emission is not a valid police radar signal.”
Our analysis of Appellants’ argument that Singer does not disclose
user activated input as called for in claim 1, supra, demonstrates the Singer
discloses the steps at issue here.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3-6, 8, and 9.

Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 over Orr and Jones
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 as a group, and we select
claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 15; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants repeat the argument used against Jones relied upon for the
rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Iwakini, Jones, and Singer. See App.
Br. 15; Reply Br. 7-8. For the reasons explained in the analysis of claim 1,
supra, those arguments are unconvincing here as well. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9.

Claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 over Orr, Jones, and Iwakini
Appellants argue claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 as a group, and we select claim
2 as representative. App. Br. 15; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 2
depends from independent claim 1.
Appellants repeat their earlier arguments. App Br. 15. For the
reasons explained in the analysis of claim 1, supra, those arguments are
unconvincing here as well.5 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims
1, 3, 6, 8, and 9.

5 As this rejection is not over Singer, we consider the arguments used against
the rejection of claim 1 relating to Iwakini and Jones.
Appeal 2010-004540
Application 11/305,267

9
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh