Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13457547 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

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.
13/457,547 04/27/2012 Joseph M. Anderson RTN-660BUS/10-1153-US-NP 1017
33164 7590 03/30/2017
RAYTHEON COMPANY
C/O DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP
354A TURNPIKE STREET
SUITE 301A
CANTON, MA 02021
EXAMINER
MUNOZ, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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):
docketing@dc-m.com
amk@dc-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH M. ANDERSON, JARED W. JORDAN,
and CHARLES G. GILBERT
Appeal 2015-007264
Application 13/457,547
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—24 of Application 13/457,547
(“the ‘547 Application”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 2—
13. Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
1 Raytheon Company is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007264
Application 13/457,547
BACKGROUND
The ’547 Application relates to the manufacture and structure of an
antenna system comprising an array of ridged waveguide Vivaldi radiator
antenna elements disposed over a ground plane including an electromagnetic
bandgap (EBG) material. Spec. 111.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’547 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. An antenna, comprising:
a suspended air stripline (SAS) disposed in a housing, said SAS
having a proximate end and a distal end;
a ridged waveguide coupler, having a proximate end and a
distal end, said proximate end of said ridged waveguide coupler
disposed substantially in an aperture in said housing and
coupled thereto, said aperture located above said distal end of
said SAS;
an electromagnetic bandgap (EBG) ground plane disposed on
said housing substantially surrounding said ridged waveguide
coupler; and
one or more radiating elements coupled to the distal end of said
ridged waveguide coupler,
wherein said one or more radiating elements are configured to
couple electromagnetic energy from the proximate end of said
SAS, through said ridged waveguide coupler, and into free
space.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3—7, 11, 13—18, and 20—24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yu et al. (US
6,052,889, iss. April 25, 2000) (hereinafter “Yu”) in view of Anthony Lai et
2
Appeal 2015-007264
Application 13/457,547
al., Infinite Wavelength Resonant Antennas with Monopolar Radiation
Pattern Based on Periodic Structures, 55 IEEE Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation, No. 3, 868—876 (March 2007) (hereinafter “Lai”) and
further in view of Debski et al. (US 4,063,248, iss. Dec. 13, 1977)
(hereinafter “Debski”). Final Act. 2—10.
2. Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Yu, Lai, and Debski and further in
view of Robert et al. (US 2009/0303128 Al, pub. Dec. 10, 2009)
(hereinafter “Robert”). Id. at 10.
3. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Yu, Lai, and Debski and further in
view of Rief et al. (US 6,271,799 Bl, iss. Aug. 7, 2001). Id. at 11.
4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Yu, Lai, and Debski and further in view of
Anderson (US 4,427,984, iss. Jan. 24, 1984) (hereinafter “Anderson”). Id. at
11-12.
5. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Yu, Lai, and Debski and further in view of
Aisenbrey (US 2004/0233112 Al, pub. Nov. 25, 2004) (hereinafter
“Aisenbrey”). Id. at 12—13.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. In rejecting claims 1, 3—7, 11, and 13—18, the Examiner
finds that Debski teaches a ridged waveguide coupler as required by
independent claims 1 and 18 and claims depending therefrom. Final Act. 5.
3
Appeal 2015-007264
Application 13/457,547
Figure 1 of Debski is reproduced below:
Figure 1 depicts the antenna element of Debski including waveguide radiator
10, dipole radiator 12, and coaxial connector 38. Debski 3:21—24, 4:24—28.
The Examiner found that “Debski teaches (Figs. 1-6) a ridged waveguide
coupler (10) having a proximate end (21) and a distal end . . . [and] one or
more radiating elements (12) coupled to the distal end of said coupler (see
Fig. 1).” Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that Debski does not teach a ridged waveguide
coupler. Appeal Br. 10—14. Rather, they assert, Debski teaches a ridged
waveguide radiator which radiates wave energy signals into free space. Id.
at 11. Appellants further contend that Debski is intended to permit radiating
signals in multiple polarizations through the simultaneous use of both
waveguide radiator 10 and dipole radiator 12. Id. In support, Appellants
note that Debski teaches that wave energy signals are supplied to dipole
4
Appeal 2015-007264
Application 13/457,547
radiator 12 by coaxial connector 38 rather than through the interior of the
ridged waveguide. Id. at 12 (citing Debski 4:12—32). The Examiner
concedes this point, but finds that Debski “electromagnetically couples
dipole arms 26 and 28 using elements 30 and 36 to the feed 38” and that
elements 30 and 36 are parts waveguide radiator 10. Answer 5. That is, the
Examiner construes electromagnetic energy passing through the coaxial
connector 38 and the strip line 36 as “through said ridged waveguide
coupler” as required by claim 1. This is at odds with the Specification,
which provides as follows:
In contrast with other approaches, this approach requires
no additional components other than ridged waveguide coupler
220 and Vivaldi radiators 230. Use is made of the ridged
waveguide's dominant TE10 mode as a coupling mechanism
rather than the coaxial mode employed in the prior art (such as,
for example, Yu '889).
Spec. 135. Construing the claim term in view of the Specification, we
determine that electromagnetic energy passing through the coaxial connector
38 of Debski does not pass “through said ridged waveguide coupler.”
Accordingly, we do not adopt the Examiner’s finding that Debski teaches a
ridged waveguide coupler.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner has failed to state an
adequate reason to combine the teachings of Yu and Debski. Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner finds that such combination would have been obvious so as
“to provide a relatively wide band-width of radiator operation.” Final Act.
5.2 The teaching of Debski cited in support of this finding concerns the
2 The Examiner cites Yu 3:59—66 in support of the finding regarding reason
to combine. We construe this as a reference to Debski 3:59—63.
5
Appeal 2015-007264
Application 13/457,547
“coaxial to ridge waveguide transition” in the context of a waveguide
radiator. See Debski 3:59—66. The cited passage does not include any
teaching regarding the benefit or detriment of using a ridged waveguide
coupler to couple energy from a suspended air stripline to a radiating
element.
In view of the foregoing, Rejection 1 is not sustained.
Rejections 2—5. Appellants seek review of Rejections 2—5 on the
same basis as Rejection 1. Each claim of the ‘547 Application depends from
claim 1, claim 18, or claim 24. Each of these claims requires a ridged
waveguide coupler through which wave energy is coupled to a radiating
element. Appeal Br. 21, 23, 24 (Claims App.). Accordingly, these
rejections are reversed for the same reasons as for Rejection 1.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1—
24 of the ’547 Application.
REVERSED
6