Ex Parte Dunn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2014

11558841 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOUG L. DUNN, GREGORY POILASNE, and HENRY S.
CHANG
____________

Appeal 2012-007883
Application 11/558,841
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 2–5 and 14–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1 and 6–13 are cancelled.
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify Kyocera Corporation as the real party in interest.
(Br. 3.)
Appeal 2012-007883
Application 11/558,841

2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an antenna system with a plurality of feed
points. (Abstract.) Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
14. A portable wireless device, comprising:
an antenna;
a plurality of antenna feed points operatively coupled to
the antenna, each of the antenna feed points providing a
different current distribution on the antenna; and
a controller for determining operational parameters of the
portable wireless device and for selecting one of the antenna
feed points to be connected to both a transmit path and a receive
path of a transceiver of the portable wireless device, the
selection of the one antenna feed point based on the determined
operational parameters to improve antenna performance.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

Brachat et al. US 2002/0113737 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Vance US 2005/0245204 A1 Nov. 3, 2005
Ella et al. US 2007/0085754 A1 Apr. 19, 2007
(filed Oct. 18, 2005)
Tudosoiu et al. US 2007/0161357 A1 Jul. 12, 2007
(filed Sep. 18, 2006)

Appeal 2012-007883
Application 11/558,841

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 3, 14–15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Ella. (Ans. 4–6.)
Claims 2, 4–5 and 18–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ella and Vance. (Final Action 4–6.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ella and Tudosoiu. (Final Action 6–7.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Brachat. (Final Action 7.)

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants’ Appeal Brief raises the following issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Ella discloses “a plurality
of antenna feed points operatively coupled to the antenna,” as claimed in the
first element of claim 14. (App. Br. 9–11.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 22, 2011) and the Answer (mailed
February 15, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellants properly raised in the Brief. Any
other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Brief, or which are made in a conclusory fashion, are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2012-007883
Application 11/558,841

4
arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4–6); and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 7–9), and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner.
The Examiner cited the disclosure in Ella that the output of antenna
110 shown in Figure 5A is “split into four signal paths 161, 162, 163, 164”
as satisfying the claim 14 requirement of “a plurality of antenna feed points
operatively coupled to the antenna.” (Ans. 4–5; Ella Fig. 5A, ¶ 20.)
Appellants argue that Ella only discloses one feed point per antenna, based
on the statement in Ella that “an electrostatic discharge protection circuit is
provided between the antenna feed point and the switching module.” (Br. 9–
10; Ella ¶ 6.) Appellants point out that this statement refers to a single point
in Figure 5A, and the signal paths that the Examiner relies on are at different
locations in the figure than the single point in Figure 5A. (App. Br. 10.)
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive.3 We agree with the
Examiner that, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
“feed point,” the disclosure of Ella that the feed point is split into four signal
paths constitutes a disclosure of four feed points. (Ans. 7-8.) We note that
“feed point” is reasonably construed to encompass both feed points that
handle signals transmitted from the antenna and those that handle signals
received by the antenna, as confirmed by the specification. (Spec. ¶ 28.)

3 Appellants raise a new argument in their Reply Brief, that the signal paths
in Ella do not provide “a different current distribution on the antenna,” as
required by claim 14. (Rep. Br. 2.) This argument should have been raised
in the Appeal Brief, and therefore is untimely and deemed waived. Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010).
Appeal 2012-007883
Application 11/558,841

5

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 14. For the same reason, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 3, 15 and 17, which were not argued separately with particularity. In
addition, the following rejections were not raised or argued on appeal, and
therefore are sustained: (i) the rejection of claims 2, 4–5 and 18–19 in light
of Ella and Vance; (ii) the rejection of claim 20 in light of Ella and
Tudosoiu; and (iii) the rejection of claim 16 in light of Brachat.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–5 and 14–20 is affirmed.
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

lv