Rosemount Aerospace Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

2020000472 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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.
15/176,644 06/08/2016 Mark Ray 94165US01-U100-012814 5419
113529 7590 07/02/2020
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
WINDRICH, MARCUS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK RAY and MARK SHERWOOD MILLER

Appeal 2020-000472
Application 15/176,644
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, the only claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Rosemount Aerospace Inc. is the applicant of record. Bib.
Data Sheet. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation, and states that United Technologies directly or
indirectly owns the entire equity in Rosemount Aerospace. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000472
Application 15/176,644

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to an ice detection system and method
for determining the condition of a cloud. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is
reproduced below:
1. An aircraft ice detection system configured to determine a
condition of a cloud, the aircraft ice detection system comprising:
a radar transmitter configured to produce quasi-optical
radiation at a wavelength selected to detect
supercooled large droplets by reflection from
supercooled large droplets in the cloud;
optics configured to direct the quasi-optical radiation from
the radar transmitter to the cloud and receive
reflected quasi-optical radiation from the cloud;
a radar receiver configured to receive the reflected quasi-
optical radiation from the optics; and
a splitter configured to direct the reflected quasi-optical
radiation from the optics to the radar receiver.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–11, 13–15, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ray (US 2010/0110431 A1, published May 6,
2010) in view of Volkov (US 6,777,684 B1, issued Aug. 17, 2004);
(ii) claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ray in view of Volkov and Huguenin (US 5,202,692, issued Apr. 13,
1993);
(iii) claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ray in view of Volkov and Khammouni (US 6,166,699, issued Dec. 26,
2000); and
Appeal 2020-000472
Application 15/176,644

3
(iv) claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ray in view of Volkov and Thomson (US 3,921,173, issued Nov. 18,
1975).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1, 2, 4–6, 9–11, 13–15, and 18–20--§ 103--Ray/Volkov
The Examiner finds that Ray discloses all limitations of the ice
detection system recited in claim 1, with the exception that Ray does not
disclose that its transmitter employs quasi-optical radiation2 to detect
supercooled large droplets, and instead employs radiation in the optical
range. Final Act. 4. The Examiner cites to Volkov as disclosing a system
that involves transmitting quasi-optical radiation used to detect ice. Id.,
citing Volkov, col. 74, ll. 50–51. The Examiner notes that Volkov’s quasi-
optical radiation “is capable of detecting supercooled large droplets. Id.,
citing Volkov, Fig. 2 and col. 4, ll. 45–47. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to use the quasi-optical band disclosed in Volkov
in the Ray ice detection system, in order to gain the benefit of improved
propagation in weather. Id., citing Volkov, col. 1, ll. 18–21.
Appellant counters that Volkov is directed to a wide variety of
applications for imaging, many or all of which involve the ability to
penetrate solid substances like clothes, rocks, fog, dust and light rain.

2 Appellant describes quasi-optical radiation as lying in “the millimeter and
sub-millimeter range of infrared wavelengths that lie just outside the
‘optical’ spectrum but may still be reflected and focused using the same
optics as are used for radiation in the optical spectrum.” Spec. ¶ 8.
Elsewhere in the Specification, Appellant notes that wavelengths in the
IEEE G-Band (1 mm to 2.7 mm wavelength) and those lying close to and
encompassing the G-Band (0.1 mm to 3 mm wavelength) are considered to
be quasi-optical. Spec. ¶ 10.
Appeal 2020-000472
Application 15/176,644

4
Appeal Br. 6, citing Volkov, col. 74, ll. 16–22. Appellant points out that
Volkov discloses that its use of millimeter and sub-millimeter wavelengths
provide superior propagation in poor weather conditions, including in rain
and fog. Id. Appellant argues that, notwithstanding a single reference in
Volkov to the possibility that an example of its systems might be used to
detect ice, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not view Volkov as
teaching or suggesting using the radiation wavelengths disclosed as being
suitable for creating reflection from supercooled large droplets in a cloud.
Id. Instead, according to Appellant, the focus in Volkov is on penetrating or
seeing through targets. Id. at 7. Appellant thus assigns error to the proposed
combination of Ray and Volkov. Id.
Appellant has the better position here. Although we agree with the
Examiner that, were the Ray system modified to use quasi-optical radiation
as disclosed in Volkov, the modified system would have the capability of
detecting supercooled large droplets, the teachings of Volkov that involve
imaging in adverse weather conditions such as fog are, in the main, seeking
to “see” or image objects other than the fog itself. See, e.g., Volkov, col. 74,
ll. 48–49 (inland waterway navigation in fog). Thus, even though the
radiation contemplated for use by Volkov is or includes quasi-optical
wavelength radiation (col. 3, l. 66 “wavelength between about 0.1 and about
10 mm”), Volkov’s focus on penetrating substances or objects which
obstruct visual observation, such as clouds in the case of Ray, appears to
have resulted in Volkov’s lack of recognition that certain of those
wavelengths, particularly at the lower end of the disclosed range, might not
be especially effective at penetrating completely through certain vision-
obstructing objects, and would instead be absorbed or reflected. As such,
Appeal 2020-000472
Application 15/176,644

5
neither Volkov nor Ray appears to provide sufficient indication to a person
of ordinary skill in the art that wavelengths in the quasi-optical range would
potentially be useful, for example, in a cloud characterization system as
disclosed in Ray. In addition, although Volkov evidences the common
knowledge that different objects irradiated by radiation of a particular
wavelength will have different reflection and attenuation characteristics,
Volkov does not, for example, provide any particular examples or general
conditions that might lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider
using subsets of the overall range of wavelengths for purposes other than
penetrating obstructive media and instead analyzing that media in some
manner.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Ray and Volkov. Independent claim 1 involves a method
essentially performed by the system set forth in claim 1, and the rejection is
not sustained as to that claim, either. Claims 2, 4–6, 9, 11, 13–15, and 18–
20 depend either directly or indirectly from one of claims 1 and 10, and the
rejection is not sustained as to those claims as well.

Claims 3 and 12--§ 103--Ray/Volkov/Huguenin
The Examiner does not rely on Huguenin in any manner that cures the
deficiency in the proposed combination of Ray and Volkov. The rejection of
claims 3 and 12 is not sustained.

Appeal 2020-000472
Application 15/176,644

6
Claims 7 and 16--§ 103--Ray/Volkov/Khammouni
The Examiner does not rely on Khammouni in any manner that cures
the deficiency in the proposed combination of Ray and Volkov. The
rejection of claims 7 and 16 is not sustained.

Claims 8 and 17--§ 103--Ray/Volkov/Thomson
The Examiner does not rely on Thomson in any manner that cures the
deficiency in the proposed combination of Roy and Volkov. The rejection
of claims 8 and 17 is not sustained.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.

CONCLUSION

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6,
9–11, 13–
15, 18–20
103 Ray, Volkov 1, 2, 4–6, 9–
11, 13–15,
18–20
3, 12 103 Ray, Volkov, Huguenin 3, 12
7, 16 103 Ray, Volkov,
Khammouni
7, 16
8, 17 103 Ray, Volkov, Thomson 8, 17
Overall
Outcome

1–20

REVERSED