Ex Parte Bafrooei et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

13115169 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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.
13/115,169 05/25/2011 Seyed Pedram Mousavi Bafrooei 60449-221 PUS 1 2917
26096 7590 12/28/2016
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
MIKELS, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2876
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEYED PEDRAM MOUSAVI BAFROOEI,
WILLIAM BEN MINERS, and OTMAN A. BASIR
Appeal 2015-006260
Application 13/115,169
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intelligent
Mechatronic Systems Inc. (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2015-006260
Application 13/115,169
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a wideband, circular polarization, L-
shaped monopole slot antenna (Spec. 1 5). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal
reads as follows:
1. An antenna comprising:
a substrate;
a ground plane formed on the substrate, the ground plane
having a first monopole slot and a second monopole slot
connected together to form an L-shaped monopole slot
configured to produce circular polarization, the first monopole
slot extending from the second monopole slot to one edge of the
ground plane, the second monopole slot extending from the first
monopole slot to another edge of the ground plane; and
a C-shaped feed line on the substrate.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Oberschmidt (EP 1158605 Al; pub. Nov. 28, 2001) and Davies (US
2005/0248494 Al; pub. Nov. 10, 2005) (see Ans. 2—5).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1 and 19
Claim Interpretation
Appellants contend Oberschmidt’s monopole slots do not extend to
the edge of the ground plane, as recited in claims 1 and 19 (App. Br. 4;
Reply Br. 1). We are not persuaded. The broadest reasonable interpretation,
consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, of “the first monopole slot extending
... to one edge of the ground plane, the second monopole slot extending . . .
2
Appeal 2015-006260
Application 13/115,169
to another edge of the ground plane” (emphasis added) does not preclude the
claimed edges from being set back a small distance from the side of the
ground plane. In other words, the claims do not require the slot to extend all
the way to the side of the ground plane, such that the slots are flush with the
side edge. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation during examination.”). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Oberschmidf s first monopole slot (i.e., slot 2)
extends to “one edge of the ground plane” and second monopole slot (i.e.,
slot 3) extends to “another edge of the ground plane,” where the edges are
set back a small distance from the side of the ground plane (see Ans. 2
(citing Oberschmidt Fig. 1)).
Combined Teachings of Oberschmidt and Davies
Appellants contend the combination of Oberschmidt and Davies does
not teach the claimed antenna comprising a “C-shaped feed line on the
substrate” because Oberschmidt teaches the feed line should pass through
the monopole slots at an angle of 45 degrees, and substituting Davies’ C-
shaped feed line would be contrary to Oberschmidt as it would not form a 45
degree angle (App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 2). Appellants further argue the
Examiner has not provided a proper rationale for the combination, because a
C-shaped feed line would not be more compact or reduce space (Reply Br.
2).
Appellants have not identified a teaching in Oberschmidt that
criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of a C-shaped feed
line as the antenna feed line, thus we do not agree that substituting the C-
shaped feed line of Davies is contrary to the teachings of Oberschmidt. See
3
Appeal 2015-006260
Application 13/115,169
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We therefore agree with
the Examiner’s finding that a skilled artisan, in light of the combined
teachings of Oberschmidt and Davies and the creative steps that would be
employed, would be able to fit the known elements of the references
together like pieces of a puzzle to arrive at the claimed antenna having a C-
shaped feed line (Ans. 2—3 and 5—6 (citing Davies Fig. 1, C-shaped feed line
12/12a substituted in place of Oberschmidt’s feed line 4)). See KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (citation omitted). Further, we
agree that the Examiner has provided “some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,”
specifically, using a C-shaped feed line provides a longer feed line in a more
compact space (Ans. 3; see also Davies 1 5). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417—18
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oberschmidt and Davies.
Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15
Appellants contend the combination of Oberschmidt and Davies does
not teach “the lower arm [of the C-shaped feed line] is parallel to one of the
first and second monopole slots,” because moving the location of
Oberschmidt’s feed line would change the operation of the antenna, and,
therefore, configuring the lower arm to be parallel to one of the slots is not
an obvious design choice (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2—3). We are not
persuaded. First, the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with
Appellants’ disclosure, of “the lower arm is parallel to one of the first and
second monopole slots” does not preclude only a portion of the lower arm
being parallel to one of the slots. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
4
Appeal 2015-006260
Application 13/115,169
F.3d at 1369. Second, the combination of Davies’ C-shaped feed line with
Oberschmidt’s ground plane antenna does not require moving the location of
the feed line to configure a portion of the lower arm parallel to one of the
slots. Instead, Oberschmidt shows the end portion of the feed line (i.e., Fig.
1, feed line 4) is parallel to the edge of the ground plane, which is, in turn,
parallel to the horizontal slot (i.e., slot 2). Thus, Appellants’ contentions are
not persuasive of Examiner error, because the Examiner’s proffered
combination that substitutes Davies’ C-shaped feed line in place of
Oberschmidt’s feed line would result in the end portion of a lower arm of the
feed line being parallel with the edge and the horizontal slot, as taught by
Oberschmidt (see Ans. 2—3 and 5—6 (citing Oberschmidt Fig. 1 and Davies
Fig- 1)).
Claims 5 and 16
Appellants contend the combination of Oberschmidt and Davies does
not teach “the lower arm and upper arm [of the C-shaped feed line]
terminate at an edge of the substrate,” because Oberschmidt only teaches a
single feed line, not an upper and lower arm. Appellants’ contention is not
persuasive of Examiner error, because Appellants are essentially attacking
the Oberschmidt reference individually where the rejection is based on the
combination of Oberschmidt and Davies. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations
of references.”). As discussed supra, the Examiner’s proffered combination
substitutes Davies’ C-shaped feed line, which has an upper and lower arm
(Ans. 2—3 and 5—6 (citing Davies Fig. 1, C-shaped feed line 12 having two
arm portions)), for Oberschmidt’s feed line, and, thus, we agree with the
5
Appeal 2015-006260
Application 13/115,169
Examiner’s finding that the combination teaches the lower and upper arm of
the C-shape feed line terminate at the edge of the substrate (id.).
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18
Appellants contend the combination of Oberschmidt and Davies does
not teach “a connector connected to the upper arm” and “the lower arm is
open at the edge of the substrate,” again because Oberschmidt only teaches a
single feed line, not an upper and lower arm. As discussed supra,
Appellants’ contentions address the references individually, and we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Oberschmidt and
Davies teaches a C-shaped feed line with an upper and lower arm (Ans. 2—3
and 5—6). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. We further agree that the
combination teaches a connector connected to the upper arm (Ans. 2—3
(citing Oberschmidt 118; see also Davies 120 and Figs. 4—5, end of feed
line 12a has connector)), and the lower arm is open at the edge of the
substrate (id. (opposite end of Davies feed line from 12a is open)).
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 11—13 for the
reasons stated with respect to independent claim 1, and we sustain the
rejection of claims 8—10 for the reasons stated with respect to their base
claims 3—7 as well as independent claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
6
Appeal 2015-006260
Application 13/115,169
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7