ID:A105169 .,.ANDARD FORM 110. G4 e e 

Office M.emorandum . • u~o sTAT.!}S 

·~\ ~ "'-~ 

GOVERNMENT 

20 December 1950 

~ ~~ ~ 

PB.OM Mr. Stauffer 

SUBJECT Application 478,193 

The decision of the Board of Appeals in your application 478,193 is attached. 

The Examiner has been affirmed. 

I still think that we're entitled as much to rely upon dictionary definitions 

as the Examiner is, and I feel that the Board of Appeals skipped over the crux 

of the matter (page 5), but I seriously doubt that further prosecution of the /jt, . .ST~~ 

case would be worthwhile. 

Will you let me have your views? 

. - @'pproved for Release by NSA on 09-10-2013 
App~al ~o. 21,161 

REF ID:A105169 

MAILED 

CEC e 19::;0 

u. s. PAl un OFFICL 

BOARD Of APPCJ\LS 

IN THE vNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

BEFORE THE BOARD OF APP~ALS 

.... Iii ....................... .. 

!?!. P,§.t:te. 'William F ~ Friedman 

--

Paper ?~o 111 22 

DU 

Application £0~ Patent filod March 6, 1943~ Serial 

No. J...78,193. System tor EnciiJhe:rin~ Facsimile:. 

-~ - .. .,, -···-- kr. Henry :B.- Staurter tor a.ppellal'lt. 

pf I ... I t f 

This ia an appeal from the r1nal rejection or elai~ 

14. Claims 5, 6t 71 131 and l5t ~he remainine elaime in the caset 

atal'1d allowed. 

The appealed claim isi 

ll+. .Means tor secretly ~ranan11ttin& graph::t.c inf'ormation 

oomprisinc a de~iee for seennin; end repreeonttnt $aid gra~nie in-

!ort1ation as a series of alectr1c i.m.pulsee of varyint; intensity, 

\ 

a ca.mourlabe messnce * a second device arranced for scaimin,.. said 

careoutlage ~essaco and re,,,rodueing the same as a .seecmd s&ries or ~lectr!c impula•s or va~;jn& inieneity tne imyulses or said seecnd 

i

riea beir1e nonsJnehronous with the impulses o:r said .first •arias, & electror.1oehanical :interlock: eon.."\ected under thlf1 control. or both 

aa1d eeriee or impu.lses ror energization whenever predGtermined C)"Jbinations of' j,npul1Jes oceur in the two said series or :tm1)ulaee,, 

a\d a tra.uuni tt.er coxitrolled by said interlock and adapted to emit i~ulses 'Whenever said interlock is energised. 
;21,161 

Vernam, 

Cartier, 

REF ID:A105169 

The references relied upon are1 

1,110.719. 

1,868.967, July 221 19191 July 26,. 19,:32. 

The appealed clairn is. drawo to a f aesimile oncipbering 

system wherein a d\ml'm.y or camouflage picture i& acannea concurrently with a picture or other subject matter eontaining t.he 

message to be transmitted ~nd wherein the two signals srie inter~ 

acted to ~roduee an encipherad £acsi~ile signal. Appellantts 

apparatu$ and Method of opera~1on have been described in detail 

in the Examiner's Statement, to ~n1ich r$ference ia made. 

Tho appealed elaim ras been reJectad &$ unpatentabJe 

ovor Cartier or Vernam.. 

The .Examiner applies t.he re!erences to t he claim and 

contends that the meane for seerctly tranamittin~ Eraphie inf'ormati.on :ts ctoarly disclosed by the re!erencea a1nee they relate to 

secret telegraphy systems. He alao contends that th~oe references 

disclose a ttdevice tor scanningtt since a tape transmitter is a 

"device for seanru.nc;tt because j t senses successive pox t..iona or a. 

tape. The Examiner also st.ates that the references diaeloue rrand 

representinc sa1d graphic inf orm~t1on as a aerie$ or el~Q~rie impulses of -varying inteneit.y, 11 since 'Lhe 1mpulse to be conveyed i.a 

tranelated through the mediu.~ of tho tape in the ~ransm.itter ot 

. the references into a seX""ies of 1,nl.ilulees of varying intensity, 

' 1

t:1hat is, in Cart1er the intensity of the pulses varies from a neea• 

tive value to s positive value and in Varnam the intensity or th« 

\ 

ilJ~ees varies from a maximwa voltace to no voltaae. 

aJ:io states that ooth of the rete~ences diselou~ "a camouflage meaM 

so.t.o" aa well as '*a eeeond device arrattzed tor aca.nninf.t said camou .... 

!la~rocsaage end reproducing tne eame as a second a~riee or elec~ 
REF ID:A105169 

tric impulses of vary1nr; in~ensity. •• t!'hG Examine.e al ao con .. 

trends that tho refersn.cee disclose "'the impulses o:t said seoond 

series bain« nonsynchronous with the icipulses o:r said .first 

series" sinca ttie operation 0£ the oara K with reapoet to the 

bars Kl of' Cattier, for example, ie nonsynchronoue within the 

meaning o:t the term as defined in \Webster•s New lnta:rf!ational 

Dter.;icnacy, Unab.r:ldted 1940 Edition. The Examiner aleo stat.es 

that the refertrlncos disclose tbe electromcohanieal intorlock as 

•"t :torth in the claim as well ae tha tranamitter cot1trolled by 

the interlock .. 

The appollant contends that the bX&~iner'a position. 

that since the l:"aterences relate tot elegraphy they involve the 

tranemiusion of graphic irlfonnation1 is only loosely tr~e. He 

•ta~ea tb~t originally a telegraph ayaten pt-oduced tnarka on a 

paper at the receiver and ••Y do so today 1 altncugh trequ~ntly 

\ the received eignal perfo~ates a tape, but that noither of th•s~ I \ ayeteo$ includee t~& tra~sm1seion ot &raphic information which 

implies the formation or a tepliea or facsimile or the original 

message ... 

We do not .a,iree with appol1a.nt ls corrt.ontion itl this 

~Gspect aince a p&rtorated tape 1s a graphJe representation ot 

a messace* especially to one sufficiently iP£on..,ed ae to the 

meaninc ot the perrorat1ons. ~'hil~ ~~ do not agree tba~ the 

tra:n.$tii8aion of graph~c i.nfomation necessarily aplios the !'orma-

~:lon upon reeoption ot a taceimile 0£ t.1.te ortt;inal thHtsate, 

~verthEtl~es it ia ver f old in tlie t-clogra".th art to reproduce at 

t1'e raoeiver a r$per.toration or the tape ueed at the traiU9'11itter1 

this being «speoially so in •~cret systems 'Wherein th$ repe~tor-

- -=-
\ 

REF ID:A105169 

121,161 

atod tape 1s subsequently tl8Gd in connection with the codinc 

tape to ,produce the des1l"ed message. 

Appellant also sta.tos that, the Exardner is :i..n. erro;r 

ir1 his ho-ldinc that a tta1>e transmitter is a dev:.iee tor acanninr;.r 

Appellant contends that ~acann and "scarmine" are tochnieal 

terms hav-:i..:nc aetablisfled moaning$, and he cites two definitions 

ot the word8 rrou Webster's New International Dictionary~ Second 

Edition. 

wet find no error in -chc Exarru.nei''s holding that the 

tape transmitter comp~iaee a d•vice .tor scanning since the tape 

is fed atap.by-step longitJdinnlly through the transmitter and 

ai each step thG presence or ab5enca or a perforation is sensed 

by the tranamit~er pine. We are of the opinion that ~nis pro• 

gresBi"Ve $0r"Sl.11C of S'L<.C¢essive portions Of the tape is broadly 

a aeannine; of the taps eince it ie the suecesid. ve exposuro oi" 

5mal1 portions or the tape in a eommunicntion $JSte~ and hence 

does not disagree -1th the definition of s~ann1ne eitGd by appel• 

lant. It is well kr~wn that eor.tt.l .racsimile systems apirally eaan 

the iuu.lg.e to bo transmj tted by means ot a .reeler el~ctrode, which 

ia obviously a aensing de'Vice. From tbi.es it. ie seen that, there 

is no absolute d1~tinction1 e~en in £aca1mile systems, betwaan a 

senein~ device and a seannin~ device+ Ir appellant had deeir0d 

\ that a MOro limi'f.,ed Mean1ncr be t,:l11en to the word ttacarmine;l1,. 11-o 

could have done $0 by a proper stateetent in the ~peei£ication~ 

It. :ts well established that liinJ..tatione cannot be read l.ntiO a 

claim f'ot! the purpose of &Yoidine the pt-:tor art even tboi.gh the 

' inpecitiea.t:ton discloses such limitations.. ln .r.! Uneer-, !)OS a.a. 

574. 
REF ID:A105169 

Appellant also points out that the appealed clai= 

requirea that the impulses ot one eor1es be nonayrrebronoua with 

the impulses ot the other. He contends that the reter.ences dieolosc apparatus in 'Which the two sign.al aequencoe must be synchronous in order that, eoabined, the/ may result in the rive• 

wiit (or aoven-~nit) Dau.dot eode the equipQents are adapted to 

handle• whereas, in appellant's device thore is no necossa17 

time relationship between tho 1mpuleee of the mosaaze and camouflage aeq,ueneea. 

It ie not clear to us just what ie meant by the ~tateaent in the claim that the impulses o! t.'le a econd aeries are nonaynchronvus w1th tho impulses of the first eerioe, It is clear 

trom appellant•s apec1!1cat1on that in order tor both or the 

relays l~ and 15 to be simultaneously energised.or a1multaneoual7 

deenergiaed, the impulses must occur simultaneously or not occur 

aimultaneoualy and in this sense they are aynehrcnouely produced. 

This ia also truo ot the reteronces, On the other hand, when it 

ie desired to have one or the relays 14 or 15 oner61Zed and the 

other deene~gized, tho 1.rnpuleea of both aoriea cannot occur simultaneously and in this eenae they are nonsynchronousa but thie is 

also true or the references- tnatevcr may be the intended meaning, 

we think that the rereronces dieclose strl.eture which ie essentially 

equivalent to that disclosed by appellant. 

Attar careful consideration ot appollant 1a argument, we 

are or tho opinion that the appealed claim was properly rejected 

aa unpatentable over the citod references. 

The decision ot the Examiner is at!irmed. 

--
REF ID:A105169 

121,161 

In ovont of appeal, attention is directed to !n..tt 

Boyce, )2 CCPA 7181 144 F.(2d) 8961 1944 C.D. 609J ;68 O.G. 568J 

63 us~~ So, in regard to specifically including in the appeal 

notice 161 erounds of rejection in tho Examinerta Statement not 

ex.preasly overruled by the Board. 

December 8, 1950 

Mr. Henry B. Stautter 

Arl!ly Security Acency The Pentagon Washington 25, n.c. 

MARK TAYLOR 

lxam1ner-in-Chiet 

L. P. McCANN • 

Ex.aminer•1n-Chiet 

R. G. NILSON 

lxamincr-1n .... Chiet 

(Actill.b) 

BOARD 

OF 

APPEALS 

• 

• 

r---= - - ,..--,-----, 

~~----------------~-==--- ~-------- -------"'