Martin Bodo

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2021

2020003058 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2021)

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.
14/691,433 04/20/2015 Martin Joseph Bodo 2305 9211
23320 7590 07/30/2021
DONALD E. SCHREIBER
POST OFFICE BOX 2926
KINGS BEACH, CA 96143-2926
EXAMINER
WINDRICH, MARCUS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2021 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN JOSEPH BODO

Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433
Technology Center 3600

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOHN P. PINKERTON,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1 and 10–17. Claims 2–9 are canceled. Response
After Final Office Action 3 (filed Mar. 5, 2019). We have jurisdiction over
the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Martin
J. Bodo. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
INTRODUCTION
The invention relates generally to a road mounted microwave reflector
for accurately positioning a vehicle regardless of inclement weather or
outside interference. Spec. 8:18–20. Figure 3 is reproduced below.

Figure 3 depicts a corner reflector 28 implanted in a road 32. Spec. 11:1–2.
Corner reflector 28 may be assembled by juxtaposing three identical
triangularly-shaped corner reflector faces 72 to form a tetrahedron that is
open at its base. Spec. 18:11–15. The vertices of the three corner reflector
faces may be connected together electrically with a dot 82 of solder, and the
assembled corner reflector faces 72 may be molded into a
hemispherically-shaped package 98 made from a material that does not
significantly attenuate microwave signals. Spec. 20:2–5, 20:7–11. When
corner reflector 28 is implanted in road 32, the open face of the tetrahedron
faces upward. Spec. 18:15–17. Each corner reflector face 72 may include a
Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

3
meandering conductor originating at one vertex of the triangular shape and
extending almost entirely across corner reflector face 72 to the side of the
triangular shape opposite the starting vertex. Spec. 19:1–5. The meandering
conductor provides corner reflector 28 with its antenna, formed by
connecting a sequence of sinusoidal curves end to end. Spec. 19:5–8.
Figure 6 is reproduced below.

Figure 6 depicts a self-driving vehicle with a transceiver mounted thereon
for transmitting a radio frequency (“RF”) signal to be echoed from a corner
reflector implanted in a road. Spec. 11:7–10, 12:1–2. In operation,
transceiver 24 may project a steered, pencil-shaped transmitted microwave
beam (dashed arrow 26) ahead of self-driving vehicle 22 toward corner
reflector 28 implanted in road 32. Spec. 12:2–7. As shown by curved,
dashed arrow 34, transceiver 24 sweeps transmitted beam 26 from
side-to-side across road in front of self-driving vehicle 22. Spec. 12:7–9.
The movement 36 of self-driving vehicle 22 along road 32, combined with
sweeping movement 34, causes transmitted beam 26 to intermittently
impinge upon corner reflectors 28 secured to road 32. Spec. 12:10–15.
Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

4
Upon such an impingement, corner reflector 28 echoes a portion of
transmitted beam 26 (dashed arrow 38) back toward transceiver 24, which
receives that portion. Spec. 12:15–21.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A retro reflector adapted for inclusion in a vehicle
guidance system upon which a steered, pencil-shaped
transmitted microwave beam may intermittently impinge and for
echoing back toward a receiving antenna a portion of the
impinging beam, the retro reflector comprising an isolated
meandering conductor that provides the retro reflector with an
antenna that is resonant at a frequency included among those
present in the impinging beam, whereby the retro reflector
responds to beam impingement by echoing back toward the
receiving antenna a frequency present among those of the
impinging beam for uniquely identifying the retro reflector.
Appeal Br., Claims App. 2.
THE REFERENCES
Name Patent or Application # Date
Lassen US 3,140,456 July 7, 1964
Taki US 2008/0191945 A1 Aug. 14, 2008
Fink US 2012/0001735 A1 Jan. 5, 2012

THE PENDING REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 10–12, and 14–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Fink and Taki. Final Act. 3–5.
Claims 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Fink, Taki, and Lassen. Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s § 103 rejections in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision,
we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellant
Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

5
made. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make in the
Briefs, are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant presents arguments only with respect to claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 3–29; Reply Br. 1–17. Thus, we select claim 1 as representative,
and dependent claims 10–17 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Fink’s cube corner
retro-reflector teaches a retro reflector as recited, except that its antenna does
not use an isolated meandering conductor. Final Act. 3 (citing Fink, Fig. 5F,
¶ 67). For that element, the Examiner cites Taki’s description of an antenna
having meandering line portions. Final Act. 4 (citing Taki ¶ 33).
Accordingly, and of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds
the combination of Fink and Taki teaches or suggests the following language
of claim 1:
the retro reflector comprising an isolated meandering conductor
that provides the retro reflector with an antenna that is resonant
at a frequency included among those present in the impinging
beam, whereby the retro reflector responds to beam impingement
by echoing back toward the receiving antenna a frequency
present among those of the impinging beam for uniquely
identifying the retro reflector.
Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–5 (additionally citing Fink ¶ 88; Taki ¶ 79). The
Examiner reasons that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to use a
meandering conductor in order to gain the benefit of reducing the number of
components and utilizing an existing technology.” Final Act. 4.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Fink and Taki, either
alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the quoted claim
Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

6
language. Appeal Br. 3–29; Reply Br. 1–17. For the reasons stated below,
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
We begin our analysis with a brief overview of the prior art. Fink
relates to an RFID system including a passive wireless tag assembly. Fink
¶ 3. Figure 5F of Fink shows an example of the passive wireless tag
assembly and is reproduced below.

Figure 5F of Fink depicts a cube corner retro-reflector. Fink ¶ 28. As
shown in Figure 5F, three plates 1501, 1502, and 1503 have been arranged
in the shape of a cube corner: the plates intersect at vertex 1504 such that
the three surfaces meet at approximately right angles. Fink ¶¶ 67, 72. Plates
1502 and 1503 may be discretized with antenna elements 1505. Fink ¶ 67.
Plate 1501 may be discretized with antenna elements 1506 connected to a
passive modulation circuit 1507 (for example, a surface acoustic wave
(SAW)-based device) for encoding identification information to an incident
signal. Fink ¶ 67.
Taki relates to providing an RFID tag with a small-sized antenna that
has a good impedance match with a circuit portion and maintains desired
Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

7
communication characteristics. Taki ¶¶ 3, 8. Figure 4 of Taki is reproduced
below.

Figure 4 of Taki depicts an example of the IC circuit portion 54 of the
antenna 52 of an RFID tag 12. Taki ¶ 83. As shown in Figure 4, IC circuit
portion 54 may be formed on one surface of substrate 68. Taki ¶ 83.
Antenna 52 consists of driven meander line portion 72 and parasitic meander
line portion 74, which are line conductors formed in a meandering pattern
such as a serpentine or S-shaped pattern. Taki ¶ 83. Driven meander line
portion 72 has feed sections ES connected to IC circuit portion 54, whereas
parasitic meander line portion 74 does not. Taki ¶ 83. Parasitic meander
line portion 74 may be positioned relative to driven meander line portion 72
such that it influences an input impedance of driven meander line portion 72.
Taki ¶ 83. Taki describes that each of driven and parasitic meander line
portions 72, 74 may have a conductive path length of at least ½ a
wavelength of the interrogating wave Fc used for radio communication
between RFID tag 12 and the radiofrequency tag communication device 14.
Taki ¶¶ 33, 86, Figs. 1, 4, 10. Taki also describes that antenna 52 can
Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

8
function in the intended manner at a plurality of resonant frequency values.
E.g., Taki ¶ 89.
Appellant argues Fink fails to disclose or suggest an “antenna that is
resonant” as claimed. Appeal Br. 8–10 (citing Fink ¶¶ 9, 13, 60, Figs. 3,
5F), 28; see also Appeal Br. 4–7 (additionally citing Fink ¶¶ 67, 72); Reply
Br. 3–14 (additionally citing Fink ¶¶ 8, 10, 88, 89). Rather, according to
Appellant, Fink merely discloses resonance occurring in a SAW-based
device, a SAW-based passive modulation circuit, and a SAW-based signal
reflector. Appeal Br. 8–10, 28; Reply Br. 2, 16.
We disagree with Appellant. Fink describes cube corner
retro-reflector 1500 as including antenna elements 1506, each of which is
connected to a passive modulation circuit 1507 responsible for encoding the
identification information to the incident signal. Fink, Fig. 5F (items 1500,
1506, 1507), ¶¶ 67, 72. Fink also describes that passive modulation circuit
1507 can be a SAW-based device (Fink ¶ 72), and that the reflector fingers
on a SAW-based signal reflector may be high Q resonators such that the
reflected energy is restricted to essentially one frequency or a narrow band
of frequencies (Fink ¶ 60). These descriptions indicate that antenna element
1506 and passive modulation circuit 1507 together possess the properties
and functionality of “an antenna that is resonant.” And there is nothing in
claim 1 that precludes the recited “antenna” from comprising a plurality of
components. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, we conclude a broad,
but reasonable interpretation of “an antenna that is resonant” encompasses
Fink’s antenna element 1506 and passive modulation circuit 1507 when
considered together. See, e.g., Fink, Fig. 5F (items 1500, 1506, 1507),
¶¶ 60, 67, 72.
Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

9
Taki also teaches or suggests “an antenna that is resonant” with its
description of an antenna having meandering line portions. Taki ¶ 33; see
also id. ¶¶ 24, 83, 86, 89, Figs. 4, 10. Similar to Appellant’s meandering
conductor, Taki’s antenna has conductive, meandering line portions formed
in a serpentine or S-shaped pattern. Compare, e.g., Taki, Figs. 4, 10, ¶ 83,
with Figs. 1–3, Spec. 19:1–10. Moreover, Taki suggests or renders obvious
an antenna that is resonant “at a frequency included among those present in
an impinging beam” because Taki describes that its antenna can function in
the intended manner at a various resonant frequency values, including
frequencies very close to the microwave frequency range. E.g., Taki ¶ 89,
Fig. 11. Claim 1 recites a retro reflector whose antenna is resonant, but it
does not specify what the resonating frequency of the retro reflector actually
is. Rather, the claim only recites that the retro reflector has an antenna that
is resonant “at a frequency included among those present in the impinging
beam,” which is a “microwave beam.” Taki does not specify whether its
antenna can have a resonating frequency in the microwave frequency range,
but it does describe that its antenna can have a resonant frequency of 980
MHz, which is very close to the lower bound of the microwave frequency
range, 1GHz. See, e.g., Taki ¶ 89, Fig. 11. Our reviewing court has held
that such a minor difference does not amount to a patentable distinction. In
re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Titanium Metals
Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We also find
that setting an antenna to be resonant at a frequency within the microwave
frequency range would have been within “the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

10
Appellant also argues that Taki’s descriptions of an antenna’s
resonance do not disclose or suggest “whereby the retro reflector responds to
beam impingement by echoing back toward the receiving antenna a
frequency present among those of the impinging beam for uniquely
identifying the retro reflector.” Appeal Br. 10–27 (citing Taki, Abstract,
¶¶ 20, 24, 30, 45, 47, 60, 70, 71, 89, 110, 116, 122, 130–34, 137, Figs. 3, 4,
10, 11, 25, 26, 29, 33, 34, 36–39); see Reply Br. 15–17. Rather, according
to Appellant, “resonance is only mentioned in the context of operating
frequencies at which the antenna’s input impudence suitably matches that of
the circuit portion of the RFID tag.” Appeal Br. 27.
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner’s
proposed combination renders the disputed claim limitation obvious.
Notwithstanding the asserted teachings of Taki, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Fink’s description of a cube corner retro-reflector teaches or at
least suggests a retro reflector for receiving a transmitted microwave beam
and responding to beam impingement by echoing back a portion of the beam
at a certain frequency toward its source. Compare Fink, Fig. 5F, with Figs.
2, 3; see also Fink ¶¶ 67, 68, 72. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings,
Fink describes that such a “passive wireless tag assembly comprises a
plurality of antennas and transmission lines interconnected with circuitry and
constructed and arranged . . . to reflect an interrogator signal in the
direction from whence it came.” Fink, Abstract; see also, e.g., id. ¶ 4. And,
as discussed above, echoing back toward the receiving antenna “a frequency
present among those of the impinging beam for uniquely identifying the
retro reflector” is not patentably distinct from the asserted prior art
combination.
Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

11
Appellant further argues:
While each of the cited references includes an antenna for
receiving a[n] electromagnetic signal, presumably a microwave
beam, the references’ respective antenna merely feed the
received electromagnetic signal onto: 1. A “SAW-based device,”
a “SAW-based []passive modulation circuit” or a “SAW-based
signal reflector” in . . . Fink . . . ; or 2. “IC circuit portion” of the
RFID tag 12 in . . . Taki.
Reply Br. 15–16. We disagree. Rather, as discussed above, the
proposed combination of Fink and Taki teaches or suggests all of the
disputed claim limitations, and the Examiner provides adequate
reasoning why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings
of Fink and Taki. See Final Act. 3–4. Nor does Appellant present any
persuasive evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings or reasoning.
That additional or intermediate steps may occur within Fink’s cube
corner retro-reflector (or Fink’s retro-reflector as modified by Taki)
prior to an impinging beam being echoed back does not change our
view.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Fink and Taki teaches or at least suggests the disputed
limitations of representative claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 10–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious based at least on Fink and Taki.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 10–17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2020-003058
Application 14/691,433

12
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 10–12,
14–16 103 Fink, Taki
1, 10–12,
14–16
13, 17 103 Fink, Taki, Lassen 13, 17
Overall
Outcome 1, 10–17
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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