Ex Parte Aikawa et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201311046542 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/046,542 01/28/2005 Masayoshi Aikawa WAM-05401 9135 26339 7590 04/30/2013 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC 200 FRIBERG PARKWAY, SUITE 1001 WESTBOROUGH, MA 01581 EXAMINER GANNON, LEVI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2817 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte MASAYOSHI AIKAWA, TAKAYUKI TANAKA, FUMIO ASAMURA, and TAKEO OITA ________________ Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MARC S. HOFF, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 2 SUMMARY Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 3, 8, and 10-14 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Martheli et al. (US 6,297,707 B1, October 2, 2001) (“Martheli”) and Yoshihara et al. (US 5,898,909, April 27, 1999) (“Yoshihara”).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a second-harmonic oscillator based on push-push oscillation which has a pair of amplifiers for oscillation, a high frequency transmission line for connecting inputs of the pair of amplifiers to each other and connecting outputs of the pair of amplifiers to each other, and an electromagnetic coupling member disposed between the inputs and outputs of the pair of amplifiers such that it is electromagnetically coupled to the high frequency transmission line. The electromagnetic coupling member includes at least a dielectric resonator. The pair of amplifiers, high frequency transmission line, and electromagnetic coupling member, form two oscillation loops which oscillate in opposite phases to each other with respect to a fundamental wave of oscillation for generating a second harmonic of the fundamental wave. Abstract. 1 Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9 are canceled. App. Br. 16-17. Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 3 GROUPING OF CLAIMS Because Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially the same reasons with respect to claims 3, 8, and 10-14, we select claim 3 as representative. App. Br. 7. Claim 3 recites: 3. A high frequency oscillator, comprising: a substrate; a pair of amplifiers for oscillation; a high frequency transmission line for connecting inputs of said pair of amplifiers to each other and connecting outputs of said pair of amplifiers to each other, wherein said high frequency transmission line comprises a microstrip line which has a signal line on one principal surface of said substrate and a ground conductor on the other principal surface of said substrate, said microstrip line including a first microstrip line portion disposed between the outputs of the pair of amplifiers and a second microstrip line portion disposed between the inputs of the pair of amplifiers; a dielectric resonator disposed between the inputs and the outputs of said pair of amplifiers such that said dielectric resonator is electromagnetically coupled with said high frequency transmission line, the dielectric resonator having an edge portion which overlaps with the microstrip line thereby electromagnetically coupling to the microstrip line; and an output line connected to said high frequency transmission line at a coupling point on the first microstrip line portion, said output line being configured as another microstrip line formed on the substrate, wherein the edge portion of the dielectric resonator overlaps the first microstrip line portion at a single point which Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 4 is the coupling point and overlaps the second microstrip line portion at least one point, and wherein said pair of amplifiers, said high frequency transmission line, and said dielectric resonator form two oscillation loops which have a same frequency of a fundamental wave of oscillation and oscillate in opposite phases to each other with respect to the fundamental wave for generating an even-order harmonic of the fundamental wave such that the two oscillation loops share the dielectric resonator while each oscillation loop includes a single amplifier. App. Br. 16-17. ISSUES AND ANALYSES We address each of Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as presented in Appellants’ Brief. Issue 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in selecting Martheli as a prior art reference because Martheli explicitly teaches away from the limitation of claim 3 reciting “the dielectric resonator having an edge portion which overlaps with the microstrip line thereby electromagnetically coupling to the microstrip line.” App. Br. 9. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that Martheli explicitly teaches away from the overlapping coupling of the resonator with the coupling points 46 and 48 in the manner that the Examiner concluded is obvious. App. Br. 9 (referring to Martheli, Fig. 3). Appellants contend that Martheli teaches that distances Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 5 of ports 46 and 48 from the resonator are adjusted to optimize the feedback. App. Br. 9 (citing Martheli, col. 4, ll. 53-54; Fig. 3). Appellants argue further that Martheli teaches that the distance of the coupling points from the resonator is adjusted to minimize the feedback whilst maintaining the oscillation obtained with an active component and that at least one other active component may be installed at the coupling points(s). App. Br. 9 (citing Martheli, col. 4, ll. 53-54). Appellants also assert that the adjustment of feedback indicated by Martheli means that the resonator is not strongly coupled to the points, the feedback having to be minimized “whilst maintaining the oscillation obtained with the active component.” App. Br. 9 (quoting Martheli, col. 3, ll. 55-57). Therefore, argue Appellants, not only does Martheli not disclose Appellants’ recited limitation, Martheli teaches away from the limitation of claim 3 requiring that the edge portions of the dielectric resonator overlap with a plurality of microstrip lines (or sections of a microstrip line). The Examiner responds that, although Martheli does use the word “distance” when referring to the coupling of the ports 46, 48 and the resonator 44, Martheli does not expressly teach that the “distance” cannot be a distance of zero. Final Rej. 7. The Examiner finds that Martheli teaches adjusting the distance between the ports 46, 48 and resonator 44 in order to optimize feedback, which is directly related to the coupling strength between the resonator and the ports 46, 48. Final Rej. 7 (citing Martheli, Fig. 3; col. 4, ll. 53-54). The Examiner finds that the interpretation of the word “distance” in the context of the invention taught by Martheli includes an embodiment when the “distance” may be zero, Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 6 which is analogous to an embodiment wherein the resonator 44 and the ports 46, 48 are overlapping. Final Rej. 7. Moreover, finds the Examiner, Appellants’ argument is inapposite because Appellants are allegedly arguing the teachings of Martheli alone and not in combination with the teachings and suggestions of Yoshihara, which provides motivation for overlapping the resonator and the microstrip transmission line. Ans. 8-9. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the Examiner that, in the context of Martheli’s teaching that “[t]he distances of the ports 46 and 48 from the resonator are then adjusted to optimize the feedback,” it is not unreasonable of the Examiner to find that such a distance could be zero. Final Rej. 7. However, even were we to reject the Examiner’s characterization of the disclosed distance (which we decline to do) we do not find that Martheli “explicitly teaches away” from the claimed invention, as Appellants contend. A reference may be said to “teach away” when “a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the instant appeal, Martheli teaches “[t]he distances of the ports 46 and 48 from the resonator are then adjusted to optimize the feedback” but does not explicitly teach or suggest that the ports may not overlap or that they must be some non-zero distance apart. Moreover, Martheli does not explicitly teach away from combining the reference’s teachings and suggestions with those of Yoshihara. On the contrary, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Martheli does not teach Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 7 an output line connected to between the outputs (46) of the pair of amplifiers (40, 42); said output line being configured as another microstrip line; or the dielectric resonator having an edge portion which overlaps the first microstrip line portion at a single point and overlapping the second transmission/microstrip line portion at least one point. Ans. 5. Since Martheli is silent in this respect, we do not find that it teaches away from the combination with Yoshihara. We consequently conclude that the Examiner did not err in employing Martheli as a prior art reference upon which to base a conclusion of obviousness. Issue 2 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that Martheli teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 3 requiring an overlap of edge portions of the dielectric with a plurality of microstrip line sections. App. Br. 10. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that even if, as the Examiner finds, the distance between the ports 46, 48 could be zero, such an interpretation still does not disclose an overlap of edge portions of the dielectric with a plurality of microstrip line sections, as is recited by Appellants. App. Br. 10. At best, contend Appellants a distance of “zero” in Martheli would indicate that the outer peripheral edge of the dielectric resonator would apparently abut with the coupling port when the dielectric resonator is projected on a plane including the coupling port. App. Br. 10. Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 8 The Examiner responds that Martheli does not teach the disputed limitation, but further responds that the rejection of claim 3 is based upon the combination of Martheli and Yoshihara. Ans. 9. The Examiner finds that the combination of Martheli and Yoshihara teaches the overlapping of resonator and microstrip transmission line. Id. The Examiner further finds that when the resonator (44) of Martheli is overlapping the microstrip transmission line (50-56), the distance between the edge of the resonator and the edge of the microstrip transmission line is zero. We agree with the Examiner. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (C.C.P.A. 1981). We agree with the Examiner that Yoshihara teaches a dielectric resonator (112) overlapping a transmission line (111) in order to enhance coupling between the resonator and transmission line. Ans. 6 (citing Yoshihara, Fig. 37; col. 19, ll. 20-25). We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Martheli and Yoshihara teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 3 reciting “the dielectric resonator having an edge portion which overlaps with the microstrip line thereby electromagnetically coupling to the microstrip line.” Issue 3 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in combining Martheli with Yoshihara, because the proposed modification would render the prior art invention being rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 11. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 9 Analysis Appellants argue that Martheli’s explicit arrangement of the resonator apart from the ports 46 and 48, means that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to any reference to modify Martheli’s device to a device in which the resonator overlaps with the coupling ports, because to do so would render the prior art invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 11 (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appellants argue further that if a proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. App. Br. 11-12. (citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (C.C.P.A. 1959). The Examiner responds that overlapping the resonator (44) of Martheli with the microstrip transmission line (50-56) would not affect the principle of operation or render the oscillator circuit of Martheli unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that the oscillator of Martheli would still function as an oscillator using a dielectric resonator. Id. The Examiner finds that the combination of Martheli and Yoshihara would enhance the coupling between the resonator (44) and the microstrip transmission line (50-56) of Martheli, as taught by Yoshihara. Ans. 10-11. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants produce case law citations but do not adduce any evidence that the combination of Martheli and Yoshihara would somehow alter the principle of operation of the oscillator circuit of Martheli, or render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. In Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 10 the absence of such evidence, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in combining Martheli with Yoshihara. Issue 4 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Yoshihara teaches or suggests the structure in which edge portions of the dielectric resonator overlap with a plurality of microstrip line sections as required by claim 3. App. Br. 14. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that Yoshihara teaches or suggests that the dielectric resonator is disposed on a single straight transmission line, i.e., a single section of one microstrip line. App. Br. 14. Appellants contend that, in such an arrangement, the dielectric resonator does not constitute any portion of a transmission path of an oscillation loop, let alone forming two oscillation loops which have a same frequency of a fundamental wave of oscillation and oscillate in opposite phases to each other with respect to the fundamental wave for generating an even-order harmonic of the fundamental wave such that the two oscillation loops share the dielectric resonator while each oscillation loop includes a single amplifier, as required by claim 13. App. Br. 14-15. The Examiner responds that Yoshihara is cited to provide motivation for overlapping a resonator with a microstrip transmission line; wherein the Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 11 overlapping provides enhanced coupling between the resonator and microstrip transmission line. Ans. 13. The Examiner finds that the resonator 44 is coupled to the points 46, 48 of Martheli. Id. The Examiner finds that if one were to combine Martheli with the overlapping teaching of Yoshihara, the overlapping would be performed at both coupling points 46 and 48. Id. The Examiner finds that it would not make sense to provide only enhanced coupling at one coupling point, 46 or 48, when the enhanced coupling could be performed at both coupling points 46 and 48. Id. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take the output of the oscillator of Martheli from a point between the pair of amplifiers because this one of the points on the transmission lines of Martheli where the desired signal would be located. Ans. 12-13. We agree with the Examiner. We have previously held that the features of a secondary reference need not be capable of incorporation into the structure of a primary reference, nor must the invention be suggested completely by one reference. Ex Parte Kahn, No. 2000-1130, at 7 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2003). We agree with the Examiner that Martheli does not teach an output line connected to between the outputs (46) of the pair of amplifiers (40, 42); said output line being configured as another microstrip line; or the dielectric resonator having an edge portion which overlaps the first microstrip line portion at a single point and overlapping the second transmission/microstrip line portion at least one point. Ans. 5. We also agree that Yoshihara teaches a dielectric resonator (112) overlapping a transmission line (111) in order to enhance coupling between the resonator and transmission line. Ans. 6 (citing Yoshihara, col. 19, ll. 20-25). We Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 12 agree with the Examiner’s finding that the first microstrip line portion (50, 52) of Martheli is coupled at a single point (46) and the second transmission line portion (54, 56) is coupled at least one point (48). We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to overlap the resonator (44) with the transmission line (50, 52, 54, 56) at points (46 and 48) of Martheli, because such a modification would have provided the benefit of enhanced coupling between the resonator and transmission line of Martheli, as taught or suggested by Yoshihara. We consequently conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Martheli and Yoshihara teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 13 and in concluding that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the two references to arrive at the claimed invention. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 8, and 10-14 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2011-000100 Application 11/046,542 13 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation