Ex Parte KimDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201411852093 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014) 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. 11/852,093 09/07/2007 Hak-Joon KIM 1235-437 1524 66547 7590 12/15/2014 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER SMITH, MARCUS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HAK-JOON KIM ____________ Appeal 2012-008559 Application 11/852,0931 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2012-008559 Application 11/852,093 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a diversity antenna apparatus of a mobile terminal that enables a sub-antenna for an auxiliary function. Spec., p. 1, ll. 14–19. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A diversity antenna apparatus of a mobile terminal, the apparatus comprising: a main antenna; a sub-antenna for performing an auxiliary function of the mobile terminal; a first Radio Frequency (RF) module for transmitting/ receiving a signal through the main antenna to which the first RF module is always connected; a second RF module installed separately from the first RF module; a sub-antenna processing module for transmitting/ receiving a signal through the sub-antenna; a switch provided on a feed line of the sub-antenna, for selectively connecting the second RF module or the sub- antenna processing module to the sub-antenna; and a controller for controlling the switch in accordance with an operation state of the mobile terminal to selectively use the sub-antenna as a diversity antenna of the mobile terminal. App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x). Appeal 2012-008559 Application 11/852,093 3 THE EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS Claims 1–6 and 9–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ly (US 2006/0025171 A1, Feb. 2, 2006) and Masaki (US 2003/0050032 A1, Mar. 13, 2003). Ans. 5–7. Claims 7, 8, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ly, Masaki, and Andersson (US 6,504,511 B2, Jan. 7, 2003). Ans. 10. ISSUES Did the Examiner properly combine and apply Ly and Masaki? Did the Examiner err in finding a motivation to combine Ly and Masaki? ANALYSIS Appellant makes several arguments that call into question the propriety of combining Ly with Masaki in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 9. First, Appellant contends that “Ly and Masaki are directed to different technologies than the present invention . . . .” App. Br. 5. The Examiner finds that Ly and Masaki both disclose multiple-antenna arrangements with a diversity switch, just as recited in claims 1 and 9. Ans. 5–6; Final Act. 2. We agree with the Examiner that Ly and Masaki are within the same technology as Appellant’s invention, and we find that Appellant has not advanced a persuasive argument as to why Ly and Masaki are not analogous to the claimed invention. Appellant further argues that “Ly and Masaki are not properly combinable since Masaki does not consider any switching function (at all) Appeal 2012-008559 Application 11/852,093 4 for the main and sub modules, while Ly always considers a switching system for the main and sub antennas.” App. Br. 5. But the Examiner cites Masaki for the proposition that Ly’s switch between the first RF module and the main antenna could be replaced by the dedicated connection from Masaki to make the main antenna “always connected” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5–6. We find no error in this reasoning, particularly because Ly already discloses a system where the first RF module and the main antenna are sometimes connected. See id. We agree with the Examiner that the replacement of a switched connection with a dedicated connection in Ly would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan in light of Masaki. Appellant also argues that “[t]he diversity of switch of Masaki connects to the RF switch of antenna 8 and a BPF [band-pass filter] module of antenna 9” such that “Masaki fails to disclose any switching function to the sub-antenna” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6 (emphasis in original). But the Examiner is not relying on Masaki for this disclosure; instead, the Examiner relies on Ly’s switch 270, Ans. 11, and Appellant concedes that Ly teaches a directly switched sub-antenna. App. Br. 5. Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellant that the disposition of a band-pass filter before the diversity switch in Masaki undermines the Examiner’s obviousness combination. Finally, Appellant argues that “the Examiner has failed to provide an adequate motivation to combine” Ly and Maskai because “the Examiner fails to provide a clear articulation of why it would have been obvious to modify the references in the manner claimed.” Reply Br. 2–3. The Examiner cites paragraph 62 of Masaki for the proposition that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated by cost reduction “to use a Appeal 2012-008559 Application 11/852,093 5 dedicated antenna to the WLAN RF module as taught by Masaki in system of Ly . . . .” Ans. 12 (citing Maskai ¶ 62). We agree with the Examiner that this teaching from Masaki would motivate the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ly and Masaki, because a dedicated connection as taught in Masaki would result in a simpler and less costly system in Ly. Furthermore, the Examiner enumerates other common teachings in Ly and Masaki that could serve as motivation to combine. For example, both Ly and Masaki make use of a switched diversity antenna arrangement in a system that processes Wi-Fi and Bluetooth signals, as noted by the Examiner. Ans. 12. Considering these factors, we find that the Examiner has adequately established a motivation to combine Ly and Masaki. Because Appellant has shown no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ly and Masaki, we sustain the rejection. Appellant has not presented separate arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–6 and 10–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ly and Masaki. Nor has Appellant presented separate arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ly, Masaki, and Andersson. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6 and 9–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ly and Masaki is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ly, Masaki, and Andersson is affirmed. Appeal 2012-008559 Application 11/852,093 6 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) (2012). AFFIRMED tc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation