Raytheon BBN Technologies Corp.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

2019006817 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
14/885,289 10/16/2015 Ronald Bruce Coleman R2059-702519(15-7375) 9855
84250 7590 09/21/2020
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
Raytheon
60 STATE STREET, 23RD FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02109
EXAMINER
FAYE, MAMADOU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 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):
CKent@LALaw.com
DOCKETING@LALaw.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RONALD BRUCE COLEMAN, RICHARD JAMES MULLEN,
and JEFFREY MAZUREK

Appeal 2019-006817
Application 14/885,289
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–14.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42—i.e., “Raytheon BBN Technologies Corp.” (Application
Data Sheet filed October 16, 2015 at 5), which is also identified as the real
party in interest (Appeal Brief filed April 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 3).
2 See Appeal Br. 5–14; Final Office Action entered April 16, 2018 (“Final
Act.”) at 4–11; Examiner’s Answer entered July 11, 2019 (“Ans.”) at 3–5.
Appeal 2019-006817
Application 14/885,289

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to infrared (IR) sensor systems
for vehicle-based counter-shooter applications and associated methods
(Specification filed October 16, 2015 (“Spec.”) at 1, ll. 5–6; Abstract).
According to the Inventors, “[t]he operation of these vehicles produces local
vibrations at the IR sensor mounting locations” and “[t]hese vibrations add
noise to the IR sensor response signal, which can severely degrade the
ability to detect signals of interest, such as the IR flash from a weapon
discharge event” (id. at 1, ll. 6–9). The invention is designed to minimize
the effects of these vibrations, thereby improving performance in detecting
IR signatures from short-duration events such as gunshots (id. at 1, ll. 12–
18).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. An infrared (IR) sensing system for vehicle-based counter-
shooter applications comprising:
an IR sensor configured to produce an IR sensor output
signal representative of a response of the IR sensor to an IR
signature of a muzzle flash of a gunshot event and a local vehicle
motion-induced vibration excitation that substantially overlaps
in frequency with the IR signature of the muzzle flash of the
gunshot event;
a reference sensor coupled to a housing of the IR sensor
and configured to provide a reference signal responsive to the
local vehicle motion-induced vibration excitation; and
a controller, including an adaptive digital filter, coupled to
the IR sensor and to the reference sensor, and configured to
receive the reference signal and to adjust coefficients of the
adaptive digital filter so as to minimize coherence between a
residual signal and the reference signal to remove the local
vehicle motion-induced vibration excitation from the IR sensor
output signal, and thereby preserve the IR signature of the
Appeal 2019-006817
Application 14/885,289

3
muzzle flash of the gunshot event, the residual signal being a
difference between the IR sensor output signal and a filter output
signal from the adaptive digital filter.
(Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added)). The two other independent claims on
appeal (i.e., claims 8 and 12) also recite limitations similar to those
highlighted in reproduced claim 1 above (id. at 16, 17).
II. REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1–3, 5–10, and 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Moroz et al.3 (“Moroz”) in view of Tamura et al.4
(“Tamura”), and further in view of Han et al.5 (“Han”) (Ans. 3–5; Final Act.
4–11).6
III. DISCUSSION
1. The Examiner’s Position
The Examiner finds that Moroz describes an IR sensor system having
many of the limitations recited in claim 1, including “an IR sensor
configured to produce an IR sensor output signal representative of a
response of the IR sensor to an IR signature of a muzzle flash of a gunshot

3 US 2006/0021498 A1, published February 2, 2006.
4 Toshiyo Tamura et al., Wearable Photoplethysmographic Sensors—Past
and Present, 3 ELECTRONICS 282–302 (2014).
5 Hyonyoung Han et al., Development of Real-Time Motion Artifact
Reduction Algorithm for a Wearable Photoplethysmography, PROCEEDINGS
OF THE 29TH ANNUAL INT’L CONFERENCE OF THE IEEE EMBS 1538–41
(2007).
6 Although the Examiner indicates that claims 4 and 11 stand rejected (Ans.
3; Final Act. 4), these claims were previously canceled in the Amendment
filed December 20, 2017.
Appeal 2019-006817
Application 14/885,289

4
event and a local vehicle motion-induced vibration excitation that
substantially overlaps in frequency with the IR signature of the muzzle flash
of the gunshot event,” wherein the system further includes “a reference
sensor coupled to a housing of the IR sensor and configured to provide a
reference signal responsive to the local vehicle motion-induced vibration
excitation,” as recited in the claim (Final Act. 4 (citing Moroz ¶¶ 1, 5, 50,
55, 82)). At the same time, in a somewhat contradictory fashion, the
Examiner also finds:
Moroz et al. are silent about: a vehicle motion-induced vibration
excitation that substantially overlaps in frequency with the IR
signature of the muzzle flash of the gunshot event; and a
controller, including, coupled to the IR sensor and to the
reference sensor, and configured to receive the reference signal
and to adjust coefficients of the adaptive digital filter so as to
minimize coherence between a residual signal and the reference
signal, the residual signal being a difference between the IR
sensor output signal and a filter output signal from the adaptive
digital filter.
(Id. (italics added for emphasis)).
To account for these differences, the Examiner relies on Tamura
(Final Act. 5). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Tamura discloses an
accelerometer used for active noise cancellation of a signal from body
motion in combination with an IR sensor and concludes that “it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skills [sic] in the art . . . to add the
accelerometer of Tamura et al. to the apparatus of Moroz et al. for
detecting the vibrational signal” (id.). For the controller limitations in claim
1, the Examiner relies further on Han and concludes that “[i]n light of the
benefits for noise cancellation using data from the accelerometer as provided
by the teachings of Han et al., it would have been obvious to one of
Appeal 2019-006817
Application 14/885,289

5
ordinary skills [sic] in the art . . . to modify the apparatus of Tamura et al.
and Moroz et al. with the teachings of Han et al.” (id.).
2. The Appellant’s Principal Contentions
The Appellant contends that Tamura and Han are non-analogous art
and therefore cannot be used as references in the rejection (Appeal Br. 5–7).
The Appellant argues that even if a person having ordinary skill in the art
were to combine the references as proposed by the Examiner, the combined
teachings of the references do not disclose or suggest various limitations
including those highlighted in reproduced claim 1 above with respect to
compensating for “local vehicle motion-induced vibration excitation” (id. at
7–8). The Appellant specifically disputes the Examiner’s finding that Moroz
discloses an IR sensor configured to produce an IR sensor output signal
representative of a response of the IR sensor to an IR signature of a muzzle
flash of a gunshot event and a vehicle motion-induced vibration excitation
(id. at 8–9). According to the Appellant, “Moroz merely states that ‘camera
vibration’ can cause a false alarm, but does not provide any detail, and
certainly does not disclose or suggest the specific features noted above and
recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and 8” and that this deficiency in Moroz
relative to the claims is not cured by Tamura and Han (id. at 9, 12). The
Appellant relies on similar arguments in support of claim 12 (id. at 13–14).
3. Opinion
We disagree with the Appellant that Tamura and Han are non-
analogous art. We concur with the Appellant, however, that the Examiner’s
rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because,
contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Moroz has not been shown to disclose
or suggest the limitations highlighted in reproduced claim 1 above.
Appeal 2019-006817
Application 14/885,289

6
The non-analogous art test considers the threshold question whether a
prior art reference is “‘too remote to be treated as prior art.’” In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741
(Fed. Cir. 1985)).
The two separate tests for determining whether a prior art reference is
analogous are as follows: (i) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; and (ii) if the reference is not
within the inventor’s field of endeavor, whether the reference is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
Clay, 966 F.2d at 658–59. The same field of endeavor test “for analogous
art requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by
reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent
application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the
claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(reference describing a toothbrush found to be in the same field of endeavor
as a claim to a hairbrush based on findings regarding function and structural
similarity). With respect to the second test, a reference is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved if it
addresses the same or similar problem. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (prior art disclosing springs as part
of a counterbalancing mechanism in a folding bed is reasonably pertinent to
an application describing a gas spring used as part of a lift assist assembly in
a claimed treadmill).
Applying the same field of endeavor test, we find that the IR sensor
systems disclosed in Tamura and Han, which relate to compensating for
body or finger motion in wearables with sensors designed to monitor blood
Appeal 2019-006817
Application 14/885,289

7
pressure or pulse signals, respectively (Tamura 282–83; Han 1538), are not
in the same field of endeavor because they relate to products having no
structural or functional similarity to the claimed sensor systems designed for
use in vehicles to detect IR signals representative of a muzzle flash from a
gunshot (Spec. 1, ll. 5–9).
But, applying the reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed test,
we find that both Tamura and Han address the same or similar problem—
i.e., compensating for motion artifacts that corrupt the IR signal of interest
(Tamura 285; Han 1538 (Abstract), 1539). ICON Health, 496 F.3d at 1380–
81 (problem addressed for a prior art folding bed is reasonably pertinent to a
lift assist assembly in a claimed treadmill).
Therefore, Tamura and Han are analogous art that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have included within the realm of prior art to
be considered. As such, we discern no persuasive merit in the Appellant’s
argument based on non-analogous art.
Nevertheless, we agree with the Appellant that the Examiner’s factual
findings as to the limitations pertaining to the compensation for “local
vehicle motion-induced vibration excitation” are flawed. Moroz describes
“an optical muzzle blast detection and counterfire targeting system for
remotely detecting the location of muzzle blasts produced by rifles, artillery
and other weapons and similar explosive events, especially sniper fire . . .
and . . . a system for directing counterfire weapons on to this location”
(Moroz ¶ 1). According to Moroz, “[c]ounterfire weapons contemplate
rifles, machine guns, mortars, artillery, missiles, bombs, and rockets” (id.
¶ 5). Although Moroz mentions that “[s]ome of the physical phenomena
that cause false alarms are edge effects, thermal effects such as convection,
Appeal 2019-006817
Application 14/885,289

8
camera vibration, and moving objects” (id. ¶ 55 (emphasis added)) and that
the IR detection camera may be mounted on a plate along with a gimbal (id.
¶ 82), the Examiner does not offer sufficient factual findings that establish
that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to
mount Moroz’s camera on a moving vehicle and the sensors and controller
are configured to compensate for vibrations caused by the vehicle. In
response to the Appellant’s argument that Moroz does not disclose or
suggest removing local vehicle-motion-induced vibration excitation that
substantially overlaps with the IR signature of the muzzle flash caused by
the gunshot, the Examiner refers to Moroz’s teaching regarding the IR
camera being mounted on the gimbal with other sensors (Ans. 4–5). But that
teaching regarding the mounting on a gimbal falls short of establishing that
the camera would be mounted on a vehicle or that the gimbal is part of the
counterfire system that includes a vehicle and that the sensors and controller
would be configured to compensate for camera vibrations caused by the
vehicle.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–10,
12–14
103 Moroz, Tamura, Han 1–3, 5–10,
12–14

REVERSED