Ex Parte HO et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 22, 201714496582 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/496,582 09/25/2014 Wai Kit HO H30037 9326 113760 7590 11/27/2017 HONFYWFT T /OT TFF PT C EXAMINER 115 Tabor Road RUST, ERIC A P.O. Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2017 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): patentservices-us @ honey well, com Office Action 113760 @ oliff. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex Parte WAI KIT HO, ADRIEL KEE FATT SIEW, RANUFF DELARIO, and LING YING KOH Appeal 2017-003302 Application 14/496,582 Technology Center 2600 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, SCOTT E. BAIN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—20, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate generally to a printer “having an antenna used for wireless communication integrated into a non-conductive housing of the machine.” Spec. 3, 14 (describing a printer or other machine with “an antenna mechanically secured to an inside surface of a housing of the Appeal 2017-003302 Application 14/496,582 machine”). By placing the antenna in “the housing, interference of radiation signals to be received by or transmitted from the antenna with metallic components of the machine is minimized, as compared to the interference of signals that may be experienced by an internal antenna positioned among the components of the machine.” Id. 114. Claim 1, with minor formatting modifications, is reproduced below: 1. A printing apparatus comprising: an antenna configured to intercept radio waves modulated with printing data; a receiver configured to recover the printing data from the intercepted radio waves; a printing module configured to generate a printed output on a printing medium based on the printing data; and a housing for the printing apparatus, wherein the housing encloses the antenna, the receiver, and the printing module, and further wherein the antenna is integrated with an interior surface of the housing so that the antenna has a radiation pattern that is not affected by metallic components of the printer. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Matoba (US 2008/0137138 Al; June 12, 2008) and Kaburagi (US 2002/0044164 Al; Apr. 18, 2002). Final Act. 4—7. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Matoba, Kaburagi, and Rhodus (US 2014/0185085 Al; July 3, 2014). Final Act. 7—9. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Matoba, Kaburagi, and Autti (US 2009/0243942 Al; Oct. 1, 2009). Final Act. 9-10. 2 Appeal 2017-003302 Application 14/496,582 Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Matoba, Kaburagi, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Final Act. 10-11. Claims 10, 11, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Matoba, Kaburagi, and Bush (US 2014/0360143 Al; Dec. 11,2014). Final Act. 11—15. Claims 12—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Matoba, Kaburagi, Bush, and Autti. Final Act. 15—17. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Matoba, Kaburagi, Bush, and Rhodus. Final Act. 17—18. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Matoba, Kaburagi, Bush, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 18-19. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, Appellants’ Specification, the Examiner’s Final Office Action and Answer. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision; arguments Appellants did not make have not been considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). In particular, Appellants argue: (1) the combination of Matoba and Kaburagi does not teach an antenna radiation pattern that is not affected by the metallic components of the combined printer; (2) Matoba and Kaburagi are not combinable; (3) the Examiner’s motivation for combining Matoba and Kaburagi is improper; and (4) Appellants have not admitted that the alleged AAPA is prior art. App. Br. 9—12; Reply Br. 1—2. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to these 3 Appeal 2017-003302 Application 14/496,582 contested issues thoroughly explained in the Final Office Action and the Answer. Final Act. 4—6, 10—11, 18—19; Ans. 21—38. We highlight the following for emphasis. First, Appellants argue the proposed combination of Matoba and Kaburagi does not teach an antenna radiation pattern because Matoba’s metallic elements will “affect the radiation pattern of any antenna placed in” Matoba’s printer. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 1—2. Appellants acknowledge that Kaburagi’s printer tray, in which Kaburagi discloses embedding an antenna, will not interfere with the antenna’s radiation pattern, but contend that, when integrated with Matoba’s printer, the metallic elements in Matoba’s printer will affect the antenna in the printer tray. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 1—2. Appellants point to no evidence supporting their assertions and provide no further explanation, instead merely concluding that Matoba’s metallic components will affect any antennas radiation pattern. See, e.g., App. Br. 9 (arguing “the metallic components in the resulting combination of cited art would clearly affect the radiation pattern thereof’); Reply Br. 2 (“There is no doubt that the metallic elements of Matoba's printer (when substituted with the antenna of Kaburagi) will affect the antenna radiation pattern.”) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner points to various disclosures in Kaburagi indicating that Kaburagi is directed to incorporating an antenna into a printer in a non- metallic printer tray in order to provide sufficient gain of transmission and reception and avoid interference with other portions of the printer. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Kaburagi 22—24); Ans. 22—23 (citing Kaburagi H 21, 24, 37, 42, Fig. 2). Of particular relevance, Kaburagi discloses “it is desirable to adopt the antenna arrangement where no metals exist on the left and right 4 Appeal 2017-003302 Application 14/496,582 and the up and down of the antenna” and arranging the printer tray that includes the antenna at approximately a 45 degree angle contributes to desirable transmission and reception characteristics. Kaburagi Tflf 24, 37, 42. As mentioned above, Appellants’ arguments provide insufficient explanation to persuade us the Examiner erred. In particular, Appellants have not explained sufficiently how Appellants’ disclosed antenna arrangement differs from the Examiner’s proposed combination. The Examiner’s proposed combination moves the antenna to the upper, outer, non-metallic surface of the combined printer that further has an adjustable angle that may allow the radiation pattern of the antenna to further avoid metallic portions of the combined printer. Kaburagi 24, 37, 42. Given the identified disclosures in Kaburagi and the lack of persuasive argument from Appellants, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination of Matoba and Kaburagi taches or suggests an antenna that “has a radiation pattern that is not affected by metallic components of the printer.” Appellants generally argue Matoba and Kaburagi are not combinable and the Examiner’s basis for combining Matoba and Kaburagi is improper. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. Appellants’ argument that Matoba and Kaburagi are not combinable is that Kaburagi’s antenna “is not sized to receive the antenna signals of a printer.” App. Br. 10. Appellants argue the Examiner’s motivation for combining Matoba and Kaburagi does not point “out what are the alleged ‘familiar elements’ or the ‘known methods’ and thus, his statement is merely conclusory and unsubstantiated.” Id. These arguments are unsupported by evidence in the record. As the Examiner finds, Kaburagi and Matoba are analogous art and both Kaburagi and Matoba include antennas that “are reasonably the same size, perform the 5 Appeal 2017-003302 Application 14/496,582 same generic functions (i.e., wireless communication), and are implemented in the same type of apparatus (i.e., image forming apparatus).” Ans. 26. Specifically, Kaburagi and Matoba are both directed to printers with antennas used to communicate with other electronic devices wirelessly. Kaburagi H 2, 21, 40, Fig. 2; Matoba Tflf 45, 46, Fig. 2. Appellants provide no further explanation of their allegation that Kaburagi’s antenna “is not sized to receive the antenna signals of a printer.” See App. Br. 10. As discussed, Kaburagi is specifically directed to a printer with a wireless antenna, so it is unclear what Appellants mean regarding Kaburagi’s antenna being improperly sized. Furthermore, the Examiner finds Kaburagi’s antenna is not improperly sized and, to the extent it is not already sized similarly to Matoba’s antenna, the Examiner provides a thorough explanation regarding how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine Kaburagi’s antenna with Matoba. Ans. 26—28. The Examiner expounds upon the rationale for combining Kaburagi with Matoba, providing explicit findings and conclusions with respect to the Graham factors. Ans. 29—32. The Examiner provides the additional rationale for combining Kaburagi and Matoba of making it “possible to obtain sufficient gain of transmission and reception,” as disclosed in Kaburagi. Ans. 32—33 (citing Kaburagi 124). In order to demonstrate obviousness, the Examiner must articulate a reason with rational underpinning, but “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. 6 Appeal 2017-003302 Application 14/496,582 Cir. 2006)). We are further mindful that the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420—21. See also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the obviousness inquiry “not only permits, but requires, consideration of common knowledge and common sense.”). The Examiner has articulated sufficient reason with a rational underpinning and Appellants have not persuasively demonstrated error in that reasoning. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and dependent claims 2—6, 8, 9, 11—18, and 20, which are not argued separately with particularity. We also sustain the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable in view of Matoba, Kaburagi, and AAPA and claim 17 as unpatentable in view of Matoba, Kaburagi, Bush, and AAP A. The Examiner finds Matoba and Kaburagi collectively teach each of the limitations recited in claim 7 except they do not “specifically disclose wherein the antenna is configured to receive radio waves in a frequency range used by IEEE 802.11 standards.” Final Act. 10. Similarly, the Examiner finds Matoba, Kaburagi, and Bush collectively teach each of the limitations recited in claim 17 except they do not “specifically disclose wherein the antenna is configured to receive radio waves in a frequency range used by IEEE 802.11 standards.” Final Act. 18. The Examiner finds paragraph 2 of Appellants’ Specification teaches the missing limitation and incorporating an antenna so configured would merely 7 Appeal 2017-003302 Application 14/496,582 be “combining familiar elements according to known methods yielding no more than predictable results.” Final Act. 10—11, 18—19. Appellants contend the cited portion of the Specification’s background is not admitted prior art because they disagree they have “admitted any prior art.” App. Br. 11. In particular, Appellants argue paragraph 2 of their Specification relates to conventional antennas rather than antennas “incorporated into the housing of the printer,” as recited in the claim. Id. Thus, Appellants argue the Examiner has not demonstrated claims 7 and 17 are obvious because their Specification does not admit that integrated antennas are configured as recited and Kaburagi fails to teach integrated antennas configured as recited. Id. at 12. The Examiner finds both Kaburagi and Matoba disclose antennas incorporated into the housing of a printer and there is no technical difference between antennas that use the IEEE 802.11 frequency range and those that do not. Ans. 35. The Examiner further finds Kaburagi explicitly discloses using an antenna that transmits and receives at 2.4GHz, which is a frequency band used in IEEE 802.11. Id. (citing Kaburagi 14). Finally, the Examiner finds Appellants’ Specification discloses using the IEEE 802.11 frequency range with either internal or external antennas. Id. In light of this evidence and the fact that IEEE 802.11 was a standard, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the Matoba-Kaburagi antenna to “receive radio waves in a frequency range used by IEEE 802.11 standards,” as recited because one of ordinary skill in the art would have: expected such devices to support the IEEE standard, known that such an antenna would have been easy to implement and safe to use, and 8 Appeal 2017-003302 Application 14/496,582 provide a desirable product line that would otherwise limit communication options. Ans. 35—36. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to claims 7 and 17. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation