Ex Parte Hickey

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2008

10332147 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DENNIS J. HICKEY
____________

Appeal 2008-0308
Application 10/332,147
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: March 26, 2008
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and
MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appeal 2008-0308
Application 10/332,147

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 11. Claims 12 and 13
have been objected to as being dependent on a rejected claim but otherwise
allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant’s invention relates to proximity sensing devices
incorporated in a projectile, for example within the fuse of an artillery shell
or a mortar (Spec. 1). According to Appellant, an antenna component of a
proximity sensing device is substantially immobilized within the encasement
portions in order to reduce the effect of vibration on the antenna’s
components (Spec. 1-2). An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10, which are
reproduced as follows:
1. A proximity sensing device comprising an antenna unit,
said antenna unit comprising:

two substantially longitudinal dipole antennas; and

interior and exterior encasement portions, encasing at least one
of the two antennas along a substantial part of the at least one antenna
between said interior encasement portion and said exterior encasement
portion, said encasement portions adapted to substantially immobilise
the at least one antenna, and the exterior encasement portion
permitting the transmission of electro-magnetic radiation
therethrough.

10. A fuze comprising a proximity sensing device according
to claim 1.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Hartley US 3,903,523 Sep. 2, 1975
Rodal US 5,521,610 May 28, 1996
2
Appeal 2008-0308
Application 10/332,147

The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
Claims 1-6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rodal.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rodal and Hartley.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the Brief
(filed Nov. 2, 2006) and the Answer (mailed Dec. 26, 2006) for the
respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner.

We affirm.

ISSUES
1. Under 35 U.S.C § 102(b), with respect to the appealed claims 1-6 and
8, does Rodal anticipate the claimed subject matter by teaching all of
the claimed limitations?
2. Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to the appealed claims 10 and
11, would one of ordinarily skilled in the art have found it obvious to
modify Rodal with Hartley to render the claimed invention
unpatentable?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. Anticipation
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
3
Appeal 2008-0308
Application 10/332,147

Anticipation of a “claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads’ on
a prior art reference”. Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,
781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

2. Obviousness
“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991), quoting In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981) and In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir.
2006).
The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing “some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007)
(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

ANALYSIS
1. 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s findings in Rodal with
respect to characterizing the substrate 30, base 16, and assembly as the
claimed interior portion of the encasement portion and dome 18 shown in
Figure 2 as the exterior encasement portion (Br. 6). Appellant further argues
that the Examiner has not shown how these two portions “provide
substantial immobilization of the two antennas” (id.). Appellant specifically
argues that since dome 18 is shown to be much larger than the antennas,
4
Appeal 2008-0308
Application 10/332,147

high “G” loads could cause the antennas to fly off their mounting substrate
30 in a direction toward dome 18 (id.).
The Examiner responds by referring to the position of antennas 24 and
25 on one side of substrate 30 as well as the placement of support 14, and
asserts that soldering these components to base 16 anchors the connecting
ends of the substrate to base 16 and provides immobilization for the
antennas (Ans. 5). The Examiner further argues that dome 18 also provides
for some degree of immobilization by enclosing the antennas and protecting
them from mechanical impact (id.).
Based on our review of Rodal, we agree with the Examiner’s
characterization of the substrate 30, the assembly 14 and the soldered ends
of the substrate in Rodal as the claimed interior encasement portion. Rodal
describes antenna elements 24 and 25 as parts of flexible circuit 12 which,
along with a set of four printed circuit anchors 26-29, are disposed on one
side of substrate 30 (col. 2, ll. 62-65). Rodal further discloses that anchors
26-29 are soldered down to base 16 (col. 2, l. 65 – col. 3, l. 2) while
assembly 14 functions as a center post to further secure the substrate to the
base by soldering (col. 2, ll. 50-56). Therefore, the connections discussed
above substantially immobilize antennas 24 and 25 by securely attaching the
antennas to the base.
Appellant relies on Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary to define
“encasement” as “the act or process of encasing: the state of being encased”
(Br. 5) and contends that, because dome 18 is spaced apart from antennas 24
and 25, dome 18 does not “encase” an antenna between itself and an interior
encasement portion (Br. 7). The Examiner argues that the antennas are
encased along a substantial part of their length between dome 18, as the
5
Appeal 2008-0308
Application 10/332,147

claimed exterior portion, and the combination of substrate 30, base 16, and
assembly 14, as the claimed interior portion (Ans. 5).
We disagree with Appellant that the claimed “encasing” necessarily
requires the two portions be in contact with the antennas. Therefore, as
argued by the Examiner, the arrangement disclosed by Rodal results in
encasing and substantially immobilizing the antennas by the virtue of
placing the antennas between substrate 30 and dome 18. As such, under the
facts we have here and the arguments presented by the Examiner and
Appellant, we find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, as
well as claims 2-6 and 8 dependent thereon, as anticipated by Rodal is
sustained.
2. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
With respect to the rejection of claims 10 and 11, we note that the
Examiner further relies on Hartley for teaching a set of dipole antennas used
in a fuse comprising a proximity sensing device wherein the encasement
portions comprise parts of the body of the fuse (Ans. 4-5). Appellant argues
that the combination is neither supported by Hartley’s disclosed “directional
characteristics” of the missile (Br. 8), nor encouraged by suggestion in both
references that there is no need to immobilize the antenna (Br. 9).
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Rodal teaches
substantially immobilizing the antennas by encasing the antennas between
the interior and exterior portions. We also agree with the Examiner that
Hartley discloses using microwave antennas in a proximity fuse (col. 1, ll.
38-46). Similarly, we find that the Examiner properly combined the applied
prior art references to find that one of ordinary skill in the art faced with the
6
Appeal 2008-0308
Application 10/332,147

problems associated with the antenna position in a fuse, would have
combined the arrangement of Rodal with Hartley’s fuse to apply the
directional characteristics of microwave antennas in finding the potential
targets for detonating the explosive charges of the missile, as disclosed by
Hartley (col. 1, ll. 42-53). Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 10 and 11 over Rodal and Hartley.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the
Examiner has erred in rejecting the claims. In view of our analysis above,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-6 and 8 and the U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 10 and 11.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting the claims 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).

AFFIRMED

gvw

7
Appeal 2008-0308
Application 10/332,147

NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD
11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
8