CommScope Technologies LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2020

15378369 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 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.
15/378,369 12/14/2016 Charles J. Buondelmonte 9833-837 5550
79207 7590 04/30/2020
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
JEGEDE, BAMIDELE ADEFOLARIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2020 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):
uspto@myersbigel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARLES J. BUONDELMONTE

Appeal 2019-004380
Application 15/378,369
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
CommScope Technologies LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004380
Application 15/378,369

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The present application generally relates to “multi-band antennas that
transmit and receive signals in at least two different frequency bands that
include [a] multi-layer feed board with the functional components, including
phase shifters, diplexers, and dipole element, employed thereon.”
Specification filed Dec. 14, 2016 (“Spec.”) ¶ 3. Use of a multi-layer feed
board is taught to reduce the need for solder interfaces “thereby reducing
PIM [passive intermodulation] issues.” Id.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:
1. A multi-band antenna comprising:
a plurality of first radiating elements that are configured
to transmit and receive signals in a first frequency band;
a plurality of second radiating elements that are
configured to transmit and receive signals in a second
frequency band that is different from the first frequency
band; and
a multi-layer feed board that includes a first conductive
layer including at least one first component that is
associated with operation in the first frequency band and
a second conductive layer including at least one second
component that is associated with operation in the second
frequency band.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2019-004380
Application 15/378,369

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Rammos US 5,872,545 Feb. 16, 1999
Chair US 2009/0096700 Al Apr. 16, 2009
Timofeev US 2012/0280878 Al Nov. 8, 2012
Karlsson, et al. EP 0 958 636 B1 Nov. 24, 1999

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1),
(2) as being anticipated by Chair. Final Action dated June 13,
2018 (“Final Act.”) 3–5.
2. Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chair in view of Timofeev. Id. at 5.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chair in view of Karlsson. Id. at 6.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chair. Id. at 6.
5. Claims 11, 12, and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Chair in view of Rammos. Id. at
6–8.
6. Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chair in view of Rammos. Id. at 8–9.
7. Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chair in view of Rammos and further in
view of Timofeev. Id. at 9–10.
Appeal 2019-004380
Application 15/378,369

4
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–6 and 10 as anticipated
by Chair. Id. at 3–5.
In support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that Chair teaches “a
multi-layer feed board (116) that includes a first conductive layer (114)
including at least one first component (first duplex - Para. 0046; Claim 1).”
Id. at 3–4. The Examiner relies, in part, on Figures 23 and 24 of Chair,
reproduced below.

Figure 23 is described as “an end view of a single-band dual polarization
antenna with beam shaping structures provided by a tray formed into an
antenna enclosure.” Chair ¶ 33 (emphasis added). Figure 24 is described as
“an end view of a dual-band dual polarization antenna with two sets of
beam shaping structures provided by two trays formed into an antenna
enclosure.” Id. ¶ 34 (emphasis added).
The Examiner further finds that the antenna feed system of Figure 23
is “inherent” in the system of Figure 24. Final Act. 2. The Examiner
additionally finds that elements 112 and 114 teach the claimed conductive
layers. Id. at 3–4. In the alternative, the Examiner finds that “Chair
discloses the feed system having multiple layers (124a-124c) electrically
Appeal 2019-004380
Application 15/378,369

5
connected to the antenna system.” Id. Figure 25, reproduced below, depicts
features 124a, 124b, and 124c.

Figure 25 shows a “dual-band dual polarization antenna 120 with three beam
shaping structures built into an antenna enclosure 122.” Chair ¶ 63.

The enclosure defines three trays 124a, 124b, and 124c, which are
each designed to receive an associated dipole antenna array configured to
operate at a different operational frequency. Id.
Appellant argues that the rejection is in error in several respects.
Appeal Br. 3–12. First, Appellant argues that Chair “does not provide a
description of the structure of the feed system.” Id. at 4. More specifically,
Appellant argues that Chair does not teach that “the feed systems for the
radiating elements for both frequency bands of the dual band antenna [of
Figure 24] are implemented on a single multilayer feed board as is recited in
Claim 1.” Id. at 5.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the feed
system is inherently disclosed. Id. at 6. Appellant cites to the MPEP for the
proposition that, “[i]n relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner
Appeal 2019-004380
Application 15/378,369

6
must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support
the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows
from the teachings of the applied art.” Id. at 6–7 (emphasis in original)
(citing MPEP § 2112(IV)). Appellant contends that “it cannot be shown that
the feed system for the plurality of first radiating elements and the feed
system for the plurality of second radiating elements ‘necessarily’ are
implemented on a common multi-layer feed board.” Id. at 7.
In the Answer, the Examiner determines as follows:
The feed system of Fig. 23 depicts the general feed system
implemented into the feed system of Fig. 24. For example, item
(104) of Fig. 23 represents item (116) of Fig. 24, and the antenna
feed system (108) is incorporated into the antenna enclosure
(116) of Fig. 24.
Thus, contrary to Appellant's assertion regarding the
improper combining of Figs. 1, 23, 24, and 25 of Chair's
disclosure, the embodiments primarily used in the rejection
shows the structural limitations recited in the claims. As
described by Chair, especially in paragraph [0044], the invention
is applicable to a single column array, single band antenna or a
multi-column, multi-band antenna.

Answer 3–4.
We do not find the Examiner’s reasoning to be persuasive. Chair
includes a summary teaching of an antenna feed system 108 in connection
with the single band antenna of Figure 23. Chair ¶ 61. It is reasonable to
infer that there is, likewise, some type of antenna feed system associated
with the dual band antennas of Figure 24. The Examiner, however, has not
cited any teaching nor provided reasoning why the feed system for the dual
band antenna system must “necessarily” be implemented as single multi-
layer board. Accordingly, we determine that the Appellant has shown error
Appeal 2019-004380
Application 15/378,369

7
with respect the Examiner’s finding that Chair teaches a multi-level feed
board having components associated with operation in the first frequency
band and the second frequency band.
Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding elements
112 and 114 to teach the respective first and second conductive layers of a
multi-layer feed board. Appeal Br. 5–6. Rather, Appellant argues, elements
112 and 114 are taught to be beam shaping trays. Id. at 5.
In the Answer, the Examiner determines that “the antenna feed
system, 108, is disposed in the antenna enclosure (116) serving as the single
multi-layer board including the conductive layers (112) and (114).” Answer
5.
This is not supported by Chair. Chair teaches, for example, “that FIG.
23 is a conceptual end view illustration of a dual polarization antenna 100
with a beam shaping tray 102 formed into an antenna enclosure 104.” Chair
¶ 61. A teaching that a beam shaping tray may form part of the antenna
enclosure falls short of a teaching that the beam shaping tray is a component
of a multi-layer feed board. Further, Figure 23 depicts the beam shaping
tray 102 as separate from antenna feed system 108.
Accordingly, Appellant has shown a lack of evidentiary support for
the Examiner’s finding that elements 112 and 114 of Chair teach the first
and second conductive layers of a multi-layer feed board. This is equally
applicable to the Examiner’s findings regarding beam shaping trays 124a,
124b, and 124c. See Chair ¶ 63; Fig. 25.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim 10 also stands rejected as anticipated by Chair.
Final Act. 4. Claim 10 requires a multi-layer feed board comprising a first
Appeal 2019-004380
Application 15/378,369

8
conductive layer including a first component associated with operation of
the antenna in a first frequency band as well as a second conductive layer
including a second component associated with operation of the antenna in a
second frequency band. The Examiner relies on element 116 of Chair as
teaching a multi-level feed board comprising first layer 114 and second layer
112.
As above, we are persuaded of error with respect to the Examiner’s
finding that enclosure 116 teaches a multi-level feed board and that beam
shaping trays 112 and 114 teach layers of the multi-level feed board.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10.
All other claims subject to Rejection 1 depend from claim 1 and the
rejection of such claims is reversed in view of such dependency.

Rejections 2–5. The Examiner rejects claims 7–9, 11–16 as obvious
over Chair in view of certain secondary references. Final Act. 5–8. Each of
these claims depends from claim 1 or claim 10. Appeal Br. 18–20 (Claims
App.). The Examiner relies upon the same findings discussed above in
support of the rejections of these claims. Final Act. 5–8. As we are
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings in support of the rejection of
claims 1 and 10, we also reverse rejections dependent thereon.

Rejections 6 and 7. The Examiner rejects claims 17–20 as obvious
over Chair and certain other references. Final Act. 8–10. Claims 18–20
depend from claim 17.
Appeal 2019-004380
Application 15/378,369

9
In support of the rejection, the Examiner finds that Chair teaches first
and second radiating elements mounted on the multi-layer feed board 116.
Final Act. 8 (citing Figs. 23, 24, 26).
Appellant argues that “nothing in Chair suggests that an antenna
enclosure is a feed board, let alone a multi-layer feed board.” Appeal Br. 15.
Consistent with our analysis above, we find such argument to be persuasive.
The cited figures do not teach radiating elements mounted on a multi-level
feed board.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 17–20.

CONCLUSION

The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 10 102(a)(1), (2) Chair 1–6, 10
7, 13 103 Chair, Timofeev 7, 13
8 103 Chair, Karlsson 8
9 103 Chair 9
11, 12,
14–16
103 Chair, Rammos 11, 12, 14–
16
17, 19 103 Chair, Rammos 17, 19
18, 20 103 Chair, Rammos,
Timofeev
18, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED