Fenton, Patrick C.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 16, 2020

13530302 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2020)

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.
13/530,302 06/22/2012 Patrick C. Fenton 016437-0290 4851
24267 7590 04/16/2020
CESARI AND MCKENNA, LLP
ONE LIBERTY SQUARE
SUITE 310
BOSTON, MA 02109
EXAMINER
ISSING, GREGORY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2020 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):
USPTOMail@c-m.com
docket@c-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PATRICK C. FENTON
____________________

Appeal 2018-008990
Application 13/530,302
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11 through 20, and 22
through 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, NovAtel Inc. is the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008990
Application 13/530,302

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an anti-jamming system to prevent
jamming from a signal originating along the horizon, the system includes an
anti-jamming antenna with a horizontal reception pattern constrained to
receive signals originating along the horizon. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. An anti-jamming subsystem for use with a
reference antenna positioned to have an upward looking
view of the sky, the anti-jamming subsystem comprising:
a. an anti-jamming antenna positioned below a
ground plane and configured to have a horizontal circular
reception pattern that is constrained to receive signals
originating along the horizon, the anti-jamming antenna
being a vertically oriented dipole antenna;
b. one or more processors that are configured to:
process signals received by the reference
antenna and the signals received by the anti-
jamming antenna, wherein the signals received by
the reference antenna include global navigation
satellite systems (GNSS) signals and one or more
jamming signals having a higher power than the
GNSS signals,
detect the one or more jamming signals at
the reference antenna and the same one or more
jamming signals at the anti-jamming antenna,
produce, in response to detecting the one or
more jamming signals at the reference antenna and
the same one or more jamming signals at the anti-
jamming antenna, an anti-jamming signal by phase
shifting and scaling the signals received at the anti-
jamming antenna, and
combine the produced anti-jamming signal
with the signals received by the reference antenna
to substantially cancel interference from the one or
more jamming signals originating along the
horizon that are received at the reference antenna
Appeal 2018-008990
Application 13/530,302

3
and preserve phase and timing information in
signals originating from higher elevation
transmitters and received at the reference antenna.
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 3 5, 11, 13, 17 through 20,
and 22 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Aloi (“High Fidelity Antenna Model Development
(HFAM) for Creation of CAT-I Siting Criteria”), Hemmati (“Null and Beam
Steering Performance of Rectangular Arrays with Dolph-Chebyshev
Weighting) and Thornberg (US 7,068,233 B1, June 27, 2006). Non-Final
Act. 2–8.
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aloi, Hemmati, Thornberg and
Nelson (US 5,592,174, January 7, 1997). Non-Final Act. 8.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 12, and 14 through 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aloi,
Hemmati, Thornberg and Nelson and Admitted Prior Art. Non-Final Act. 8–
10.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues on pages 13 through 20 of the Appeal Brief, that the
combination of Aloi, Thornberg and Hemmati does not teach producing an
anti-jamming signal and combining it with the signal received from the
reference antenna to cancel interference as recite in representative claim 1.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 10, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed field September 20 2018, (Reply Br.);
Non-Final Office Action mailed February 1, 2017 (“Non-Final Act.”); and
the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 24, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2018-008990
Application 13/530,302

4
Appellant asserts that the intended purpose of the Multipath Limiting
Antenna (MLA) in both Aloi and Thornberg, (the Examiner equated the
MLA to the claimed anti-jamming antenna used to generate the anti-
jamming signal), is to receive low elevation satellite GPS signals and allow
for accurate position determinations while minimizing multipath signals.
Appeal Br. 14–16. Thus, Appellant asserts that modifying Aloi and/or
Thornberg to use the antenna in an anti-jamming technique would render the
references unsatisfactory for their intended purpose and as such there is no
motivation to combine the references. Appeal Br. 16–18. Appellant
recognizes that Aloi also discuss implementing an anti-jamming technique,
but asserts that this teaching still makes use of the MLA to receive low
elevation GPS signals for accurate position determination. Appeal Br. 19.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant’s
arguments on pages 3 through 7 of the Answer. The Examiner identifies
that Hemmati teaches the claimed feature of producing an anti-jamming
signal by phase shifting and scaling signals received from an anti-jamming
antenna and combining them with signals from a reference antenna. Answer
3–4 (citing Hemmati Fig 3.4), Final Act. 4–5 (citing Chapter 3, and figures
3.2–3.4). Examiner notes that Aloi does not support Appellant’s reasoning
that since the MLA is designed to collect/receive GPS signals, the MLA
cannot also be used to provide anti-jamming. Answer 5. Further, the
Examiner finds that Aloi teaches using the MLA in anti-jamming techniques
where a null formed in the MLA pattern, thus showing that using the MLA
in an anti-jamming technique does not render it unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose. Answer 5 (citing Aloi sec.4.1.1 and 4.1.2).
Appeal 2018-008990
Application 13/530,302

5
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant’s arguments,
the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments and the teachings of the
references cited by the Examiner and Appellant. Appellant’s arguments
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. We are not
persuaded that the combination of the references render Aloi and Thornberg
unsatisfactory for their intended purpose.
Initially, we note that Appellant’s argument appears to be addressing a
combination different from what the Examiner applied to show obviousness.
We understand the Examiner’s rejection to be using the multi-element
canceller technique (anti-jamming technique) discussed in section 3.5 of
Hemmati, with the arrangement of antennas taught by Aloi and Thornberg.
Final Act. 2–5. Specifically the Examiner is equating the claimed reference
antenna, above a ground plane having an upward looking view of the sky to
Aloi/Thornberg’s High Zenith Antenna (HZA) and the MLA with the
claimed anti-jamming antenna positioned below the ground plane and
reviving signals originating along the horizon. Id.3 In combination, this is
applying Hemmati’s multi-element canceller technique discussed in Section
3.5 and depicted in Figures. 3.4 and 3.5 to the signal from Aloi/Thornberg’s
HZA. That is the combination is using Aloi/Thornberg’s HZA, as the
primary antenna, (which provides the GPS signal), and Aloi/Thornberg’s
MLA, as the auxiliary antenna (which mostly picks up the jammer signal) in
Hemmati’s multi-element canceller technique discussed in Section 3.5 and

3 We also note that Hemmati, seems to teach a similar arrangement as the
primary antenna is above an aircraft which would look at the sky (and have
the aircraft as a ground plane) and the secondary antenna is below the
aircraft, and have a reception pattern constrained to the horizon. (See
Hemmati Fig. 3.5, and discussion on page 31).
Appeal 2018-008990
Application 13/530,302

6
depicted in Figures. 3.4 and 3.5. As Appellant acknowledges Aloi and
Thornberg teaches that the MLA and HZA are coupled to two separate GPS
receivers and a downstream process combines the measurements from the
receivers. Appeal Br. 18. Thus, we see the Examiner’s combination as
using Hemmati’s system as adjusting the signal from Aloi/Thornberg’s HZA
to one GPS using and we do not see that would preclude also using the MLA
antenna as source for the other GPS receiver.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, that
Phase shifting and scaling the signals received at the MLA,
which include the low elevation GPS signals and jamming
signals, would intentionally distort the low elevation GPS
signals that are received at the MLA.
Reply Br. 4. To the extent Appellant argues the combination relied upon in
the rejection is applying the phase shifted signal and scaled signal from the
MLA is then applied to the signal from the MLA, we are not persuaded of
error. This is not the combination of teachings applied in the rejection nor is
it the arrangement recited in the claims. Further, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that:
modifying the teachings of Aloi such that the low elevation
GPS signals and jamming signals are phase shifted and scaled
would result in the IMLA having a radiation pattern that covers
only a portion of the upper hemisphere since the low elevation
GPS signals cannot be utilized for accurate position
determinations. Again, this is in direct conflict to (i.e.,
unsatisfactory for) the intended purpose of the IMLA in Aloi of
having an overall radiation pattern that covers the complete
upper hemisphere utilizing the GPS signals received at both the
HZA and MLA, while also mitigating interferences.
Reply Br. 5. And the similar argument on pages 5 and 6 of the Reply Brief
that the combination results in an inferior system. While the combination
Appeal 2018-008990
Application 13/530,302

7
may result in inaccurate measurements of satellite signals in the direction of
jamming (see Hemmati pg. 30), and result in not receiving a GPS satellite
coverage in the direction of the jamming, we do not consider that to be
incompatible with Aloi. As identified by the Examiner, Aloi also discusses
anti-jamming techniques which has null in the direction of jamming, thus
Aloi contemplates not having complete GPS satellite coverage in the
direction of the jamming. Answer 5; see also Aloi sec. 4.1.1. Accordingly,
Appellant’s have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in combining the
teachings of Aloi, Hemmati, and Thornberg and we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 11, 13, 17 through 20, and 22
through 26 based upon these references.
Appellant has not presented arguments with respect to the
obviousness rejections of claims 4, 8, 9, 12, and 14 through 16 which
similarly rely upon the combination of Aloi, Hemmati, and Thornberg with
other references. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these
claims for the same reasons as discussed above.

Appeal 2018-008990
Application 13/530,302

8

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 11,
13, 17–20,
22–26
103 Aloi, Hemmati,
Thornberg
1–3, 5, 11, 13,
17–20, 22–26

8, 9 103 Aloi, Hemmati,
Thornberg, Nelson
8, 9
4, 12, 14–16 103 Aloi, Hemmati,
Thornberg, Nelson,
Admitted Prior Art
4, 12, 14–16
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 8, 9, 11–
20, 22–26

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED