Ex parte Cockson et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 26, 2001

08694901 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 26, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MARK G. COCKSON, KENNETH D. SIMMONS and
DONALD E.T. WINGO
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2588
Application No. 08/694,901
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-32,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 1999-2588
Application No. 08/694,901
2
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to integrated matched antenna structures using printed
circuit techniques. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. An integrated matched antenna assembly comprising:

a printed circuit board;
a matching circuit, the matching circuit further comprising:
an inductor formed on the printed circuit board, the inductor
being comprised of a conductive strip disposed on the printed circuit board
and having a first and second end,
a capacitive element electrically connected to the inductor, the
capacitive element having first and second conductors disposed in a
spaced relation to provide a capacitance, at least one of the conductors
being formed on the printed circuit board; and
an antenna electrically connected directly to the inductor of the matching circuit.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Shyu 4,785,305 Nov. 15, 1988
Parfitt 4,992,800 Feb. 12, 1991
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14-16, 18-22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 1999-2588
Application No. 08/694,901
3
§ 102 as being anticipated by Parfitt. Claims 1-9, 11-22, 25, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Shyu. Claims 3 and 27-32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parfitt. Claims 23, 24, and 27-32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shyu.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 10, mailed Jan 22, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 9, filed Oct. 26, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 11, filed Feb. 12, 1999) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants argue that neither Parfitt nor Shyu teaches or suggests the antenna directly
connected to the inductor of the matching circuit. (See brief at pages 3 and 6.) We agree
with appellants. The examiner maintains that the capacitor acts as a short circuit at the RF
frequency and hence the inductor is connected directly to the antenna. (See answer at
Appeal No. 1999-2588
Application No. 08/694,901
4
pages 3-4.) We disagree with the examiner’s analysis of the recited claim language, and
we do not find a teaching or suggestion of direct connection between the antenna and the
inductor in either reference.
Appellants argue that the present invention is an integrated system that does not require
an external glass capacitor to complete the structure. (See brief at page 4.) We agree
with appellants. The examiner maintains that the claims do not preclude a structure with a
glass capacitor. (See answer at page 4.) We disagree with the examiner. While a glass
capacitor may be used in the system, it would have to be configured differently than as
recited in the language of independent claim 1. Specifically, Figure 2 of Parfitt and Figure
4 of Shyu show the antenna connected to the capacitor. The examiner’s argument
concerning the RF frequency is not an appropriate argument with respect to anticipation
since the structure is clearly not taught by Parfitt or Shyu. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
With respect to independent claims 18 and 26, appellants argue that Parfitt does not
teach the circuit board having a plurality of layers and the capacitor being formed on plural
layers. The examiner maintains that the “antenna 38 is formed on a printed circuit board
which is the glass 40” of Parfitt. (See answer at pages 5 and 7.) We disagree with the
examiner’s interpretation of the teachings of Parfitt. In our view, the glass of the window is
Appeal No. 1999-2588
Application No. 08/694,901
5
not a printed circuit board or layer thereof. With respect to the teachings of Shyu, the
examiner maintains that the circuit board 5 and the dielectric glass 4 would comprise the
multi-layer boards. Again, we disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of Shyu, and we
do not find a multi-layer printed circuit board. Since the examiner has not shown the
claimed invention to be taught by either reference, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 18 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The same holds true for the claims
that depend from independent claim 18.
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner merely relies upon
the prior findings of anticipation and finds the specific details of the dependent claims to
be obvious variations of physical characteristics of the structures of Parfitt and Shyu. (See
answer at page 5.) This does not remedy the deficiencies in the structures of Parfitt and
Shyu as noted above nor does it address the motivation to modify the disclosed circuits of
Parfitt and Shyu. Therefore, the examiner has not set forth a case of obviousness.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 23, 24, and 27-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 1999-2588
Application No. 08/694,901
6
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-9 and 11-32 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2588
Application No. 08/694,901
7
JD/RWK
Appeal No. 1999-2588
Application No. 08/694,901
8
ZARLEY MCKEE THOMTE VOORHEES AND SEASE
801 GRAND AVENUE
SUITE 3200
DES MOINES, IA 50309