Application of Hammack

Decision Date02 July 1970
Docket NumberPatent Appeal No. 8278.
Citation427 F.2d 1378,166 USPQ 204
PartiesApplication of Calvin M. HAMMACK.
CourtU.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

Victor R. Beckman, San Francisco, Cal., attorney of record, for appellant.

Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents. Jere W. Sears, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and FORD, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.

BALDWIN, Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals sustaining the rejection of claims 43, 46, 51, 58, 59, 61, 63, 67-69, 76 and 81 of appellant's patent application1 as indefinite and thus failing to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112. Seven claims stand allowed.

The subject matter of the application on appeal relates to the determination of the position and velocity of moving bodies such as aircraft, space vehicles, ballistic missiles, and submarines. The well-known doppler effect, which broadly stated is the phenomenon whereby relative movement between a source of emanations or reflections of a wave train (such as sound waves or electromagnetic waves) and a receiver of the wave train results in an effective change in wave frequency, is used as the basis of measurements for making the determination. Appellant's basic measurements are of doppler effect responses indicative of either radial velocity or change in radial range. Various systems are disclosed, each requiring a plurality of such measurements in different combinations and different time relationships. Some systems use a wave transmitter in the moving body with a receiver or receivers elsewhere, and others use transmitters and receivers at known positions, as on the ground, and make the measurements by means of waves reflected from the moving bodies. The latter are disclosed as using a plurality of transmitter and cooperating receiver combinations, with the transmitter and receiver of each combination either at the same location or at different locations. It is contemplated that measured electrical values representative of the radial velocities and changes in radial ranges for the different stations and different times may be fed to computer apparatus to calculate the position or velocity of the target. Certain of the systems are disclosed with some specificity while other systems are described through general statements of modifications that may be made. A wide variation of systems is contemplated.

Although the appealed claims differ so widely that none can be designated as truly representative, claims 43, 58, 59 and 67 are set out as examples:

43. A method of determining the otherwise unknown and unbounded position of each of a number of well separated points in space comprising the steps of determining differences between geometric parameters of configurations associated with said points of unknown position, each of said configurations including only a single one of said points of unknown position and a plurality of points whose positions are known, each of said differences being determined between two selected configurations each configuration of said two selected configurations comprising the same number of known points as comprised by the other of said two selected configurations, and determining in orthogonal coordinates the position of each of said points of otherwise unknown and unbounded position using the said determined differences and the coordinates of the points of unknown position.

58. A method of locating a moving object whose position is unknown and unbounded other than as described in the steps of this claim comprising the following steps:

Step. 1. Establishing the space a plurality of reference points separate from each other and separate from the moving object;

Step 2. Transmitting wave signals from one of said reference points, which wave signals impinge upon said moving object.

Step 3. modifying the spectrum at one of said reference points, of said wave signals at said moving object in accordance with the motion of said moving object;

Step 4. changing the direction of propagation of said wave signals at said moving object;

Step 5. detecting the modified wave signals and the modification thereof;

Step 6. determining from said detected signals the values of a quantity which is linearly related to the variation of the sum of the distance from the transmitting reference point to the moving object and the distance from the moving object to the receiving reference point;

Step 7. Performing a plurality of said determinations using substantially simultaneously a number of said reference points such that the otherwise unknown and unbounded position of the moving object is completely determined and specified by the said values and the known parameters associated with said reference points and said determinations such that any useful degree of redundancy is provided.

59. An electronic system for detecting a moving reflecting object and locating the position thereof, which position is neither known nor in any way bounded and whose characteristics of motion are similarly unknown and unbounded, said system being capable of performing the above functions on a single unknown moving reflecting object in the presence of a plurality of such moving objects, comprising the following:

(1) Wave transmitting means for illuminating said moving reflecting objects;

(2) Remote from said transmitting means, receiving means for detecting the signals reflected from said moving reflecting objects;

(3) Frequency reference means at said transmitting means and at said receiving means, particularly accurate with respect to each other, for providing a common frequency base between the various transmitting and receiving means, permitting accurate determination of variations of time delay associated with the propagation paths between said transmitting means and said receiving means by way of said moving reflecting object.

(4) At said receiving means directional apertures for providing some discrimination between waves from separate spaced moving reflecting objects and for improving the signal to noise ratio of the signal to be detected by said receiving means;

(5) At said receiving means tracking filter means for improving discrimination between waves from separate moving reflecting objects whose courses and positions are such that there is a difference in the character of the reflected waves owing to the differences of such positions and motions, and for improving the signal to noise ratio of the detected signal;

(6) means connected to said receiving means for measuring discrete, substantial, and finite increments of the unknown lengths of the propagation paths of waves transmitted by said transmitting means and detecter by said receiving means;

(7) a plurality of combinations each comprising elements (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6);

(8) computing means connected to said plurality of measuring means, said computing means programmed to solve a set of simultaneous equations, said set comprising as unknown quantities the orthogonal coordinates of said moving object at the initiation and the termination of each increment measurement and comprising as known quantities the values of wave path length increments measured by said measuring means.

67. A method of determining the position of any of a plurality of separate points in space, here called A points, whose positions are unknown and unbounded other than as described in the steps of this claim comprising the following steps:

Step 1. Determining the values or linear combinations thereof, of differences in the distances between each point of pairs of said unknown A points and each of a plurality of other points in space, here called B points, said differences being between pairs of distances, each of which last-named distances terminates on a different one of said A points, the number of said determined values, the number of A points, and the number of B points being such that the otherwise unknown and unbounded positions of said A points are completely determined and specified by said determined values and any known parameters relative to said B points, with any degree of useful redundancy desired;

Step. 2. Determining the positions of said any of A point whose position it is desired to determine and the positions of as many of such points as it is desired to determine in an orthogonal coordinate system employing said determined differences and said known parameters.

The examiner rejected all of the appealed claims as indefinite, relying particularly on the requirement in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that the specification...

To continue reading

Request your trial
226 cases
  • Plastic Container Corp. v. Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 25, 1979
    ...In other words, claims must make "clear the subject matter from which they would preclude others." In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 57 C.C.P.A. 1225, 1230-31, 166 U.S.P.Q. 204, 208 (1970). As related above, in the earlier district court opinion, the court concluded that the term "coincid......
  • Ex parte Genatossio
    • United States
    • Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • August 5, 1998
    ... Ex parte LOUIS F. GENATOSSIO Appeal 98-2069 Application 29/052, 369 [1] United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board August 05, 1998 ... THIS ... OPINION ... the boundaries of protection in evaluating the possibility of ... infringement and dominance. See In re Hammack , 427 ... F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 U.S.P.Q. 204, 208 (CCPA 1970) ... Another ... fundamental purpose of a claim is to define ... ...
  • PPG Industries, Inc. v. Guardian Industries Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • February 6, 1996
    ...the "requirement is that the language of the claims must make it clear what subject matter they encompass," In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (C.C.P.A.1970). There is nothing imprecise or indefinite about the claim language in the '886 patent. The claims are quite precis......
  • Ex parte Marcilio
    • United States
    • Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • March 28, 2007
    ... ... language of the claims must make it clear what subject matter ... they encompass." In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, ... 1382, 166 U.S.P.Q. 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). This has been ... frequently stated in a shortened form as a requirement ... If ... Appellant elects prosecution before the Examiner and this ... does not result in allowance of the application, abandonment ... or a second appeal, this case should be returned to the Board ... of Patent Appeals and Interferences for final action ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §2.04 Claim Definiteness Requirement
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume I: Patentability and Validity Title CHAPTER 1 Basic Principles
    • Invalid date
    ...system," the specification did not indicate "what selection of these features would be 'aesthetically pleasing' "); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1381–1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (finding claims invalid for indefiniteness where claims "serv[ed] as a shadowy framework upon which are located words l......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT