Appeal 2006-2232
Application 10/242,188
ISSUES
The first issue in this case is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Rushing discloses comparing the intensity of
a returned pulse to a target value.
The second issue in this case is whether the Appellants have shown
that the Examiner erred in holding that Kovtun is analogous art.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s invention, as recited in claim 27, is a method of
automatically controlling the gain of a receiver in an optical system such as a
LADAR system. The method includes the step of comparing the intensity of
the returned pulse with a target value. In regard to the problem addressed by
the Appellants, the Specification states:
One concern with virtually all LADAR
receivers is the “gain” of their detectors. The gain
controls the amount of amplification applied by the
detector to a return pulse when it is received. The
gain should be commensurate with the intensity of
the return pulse. If the intensity of the return pulse
is high, then the gain of the detector should be low
to avoid oversaturating the detector’s components.
On the other hand, if the intensity is low, the gain
should be high to facilitate subsequent processing,
although not so high that “noise” is reported as a
return pulse [Specification 4].
Appellants include an automatic gain control (“AGC”) 340 to variably
control the gain of the detector array 310 (Specification 9). As depicted in
Figure 5A, the AGC includes an up/down counter 510 that is driven by an
intensity median computation at 520. The intensity median computation
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013