Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 7, 2018

13277497 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/277,497 10/20/2011
29450 7590 05/09/2018
BARLEY SNYDER
2 Great Valley Parkway
Suite 110
Malvern, PA 19355
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yu Ching Lin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
21334-2046 (CD-01594US) 7083
EXAMINER
TRAN,HAIV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2018 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):
berwynipdocket@barley.com
hsalamone@barley.com
sanastasi@barley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU CHING LIN, CHI-CHEN CHUANG,
and YEN-CHIH CHEN
Appeal 2016-004183
Application 13/277,497
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Final Action mailed October 16, 2014
("Final Act."); the Advisory Action mailed January 14, 2015 ("Adv. Act.");
the Appeal Br. filed April 10, 2015 ("Br."); and the Examiner's Answer
mailed October 6, 2015 ("Ans."). Appellants did not file a Reply Brief.
2 Appellants identify Tyco Electronics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd and Tyco
Electronics Holdings (Bermuda) as the real parties in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2016-004183
Application 13/277,497
The claims are directed to three dimensional combo antennas and
methods for their manufacture. Claim 1, reproduced below with the
disputed limitation italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A three-dimensional combo antenna, comprising:
a first insulating substrate having a first surface and a
second surface positioned opposite the first surface;
a second insulating substrate positioned on and
perpendicular to the first surface of the first insulating
substrate;
a first antenna positioned on the first insulating substrate
and coupled to a first ground; and
a second antenna positioned on the second insulating
substrate and perpendicular to the first antenna, the second
antenna coupled to a second ground which is different from the
first ground;
wherein the first and the second antennas operate at a
first frequency band.
Br. 22 (Claims App'x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Allcock
Chan
Tsfati et al.
("Tsfati")
Goldberg
us 4,686,536
US 2007/0152881 Al
US 2008/0129610 Al
US 7,394,440 B2
REJECTIONS
Aug. 11, 1987
July 5, 2007
June 5, 2008
July 1, 2008
The Examiner maintains and Appellants seek review of the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103(a): (1) claims 1-8, 12-23, and 27-30 over
2
Appeal2016-004183
Application 13/277,497
Goldberg in view of Allcock; (2) claims 9 and 24 over Goldberg in view of
Allcock and further in view of Chan; and (3) claims 10, 11, 25, and 26 over
Goldberg in view of Allcock and further in view of Tsfati. Final Act. 2, 16,
17; Br. 9.
OPINION
Claims 1 and 16 are the pending independent claims. Appellants
assert the same arguments for patentability for claims 1 and 16, as well as
for all dependent claims. Br. 13-16, 18-21. Thus, claim 16 and all
dependent claims will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 .C.F.R § 41.3(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Goldberg teaches a
three-dimensional combo antenna comprising a first insulating substrate
(first antenna board (170')) having a first surface and a second surface; a
second insulating substrate (second antenna board (180')) positioned on and
perpendicular to the first surface of the first insulating substrate; a first
antenna (antenna element 176(1) ') positioned on the first insulating substrate
and coupled to a first ground; a second antenna (antenna element 186(1 )')
positioned on the second insulating substrate and perpendicular to the first
antenna, the second antenna coupled to a second ground which is different
from the first ground; wherein the first and second antennas operate at a first
frequency band. Final Act. 2-3; Adv. Act. 2.
The Examiner cites to Goldberg's disclosure that "[t]he first and
second antenna boards may be orthogonal to one another when their
respective supports sections are contacting the ground plane. The first and
second antenna boards are thus contacting one another for forming a T -
shaped arrangement." Ans. 4--5 (quoting Goldberg col. 2, 11. 35-39). The
Examiner finds that the quoted text teaches "a second insulating substrate
3
Appeal2016-004183
Application 13/277,497
positioned on and perpendicular to the first surface of the first insulating
substrate." Id. at 4.
The Examiner acknowledges that Goldberg does not explicitly
disclose that the first and second antenna boards 170' and 180' are insulating
substrates. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Allcock discloses a three-
dimensional antenna comprising a first insulating substrate (a first printed
circuit board) and a second insulating substrate (a second printed circuit
board). Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious at the
time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the printed
circuit board teaching of Allcock to the antenna boards of Goldberg to
realize printed microstrip antenna elements. Id.
Figures 2 and 5 of Goldberg are reproduced below:
Figure 2
Figure 2 is a view of the two-dimensional structures (160, 170, 180) used to
assemble the three-dimensional antenna array of Goldberg's invention.
Goldberg col. 2, 11. 56-58.
4
Appeal2016-004183
Application 13/277,497
Fimire 5 ..;__ ..
Figure 5 is a view of an embodiment of two-dimensional structures along
with electrical components positioned thereon. Goldberg col. 2, 11. 65----67.
Appellants argue that Goldberg does not teach or suggest a first
insulating substrate having a first antenna coupled to a ground and a second
insulating substrate positioned on and perpendicular to a first surface of the
first insulating substrate and having a second antenna coupled to a second
ground which is different from the first ground. Br. 13. Appellants contend
that Goldberg teaches a structurally different device: a combination of three
two-dimensional structures (160, 170, 180) to assemble a three-dimensional
antenna array 150. Id.
According to Appellants, Goldberg teaches a ground plane 160'
having a conductive surface and a plurality of openings. Br. 13-14.
Appellants argue that Goldberg teaches a first antenna board 170' that
5
Appeal2016-004183
Application 13/277,497
includes a support section 172' and a plurality of spaced-apart first legs
extending outwardly from the support section, with an antenna element on
each leg. Id. at 14. Appellants further argue that Goldberg teaches a second
antenna board 180' with a support section 182' and at least one second leg
extending outwardly from the support section, with an antenna element on
the at least one leg. Id. at 14.
Appellants contend that, in Goldberg, "the first antenna board 170 and
the second antenna board 180 are positioned separate from each other and
only shown mounted on the ground plane 160." Id. Therefore, Appellants
argue, Goldberg does not show a second insulating substrate positioned on
and perpendicular to a first surface of the first insulating substrate. Id. at 16.
According to Appellants, this lack of the second antenna board being
positioned on the first antenna board is why Goldberg discusses a number of
techniques that may be used to electrically connect the antenna elements
176, 186, 188 to various electrical components mounted or formed on the
ground plane 160' and/or the dielectric substrate 163 carrying the ground
plane. Id. at 14. With respect to Allcock, Appellants only argue that
Allcock does not remedy the deficiencies of Goldberg. Id. at 16.
Our decision turns on interpretation of the claim term "a second
insulating substrate is positioned on and perpendicular to a first surface of
the first insulating substrate" in the claims.
Where no novel definition of a claim term is provided in an
application, we adopt the broadest reasonable interpretation of the plain
language of the claims, reading the claims in light of the specification from
the point of view of a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). What a
6
Appeal2016-004183
Application 13/277,497
reference-here, the Specification-teaches, i.e., what it would have meant
to a person having ordinary skill in the art, is a question of fact. In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("What a reference teaches is
a question of fact.").
We find no evidence of intent by Appellants to define "position" in a
unique way. Therefore, we use the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
term, read in light of the specification.
The ordinary meaning of "position" is "to put or arrange something in
a particular place or way."
https ://en. oxforddictionaries. com/ definition/position. Therefore, we find
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a second insulating substrate
positioned on and perpendicular to the first surface of the first insulating
substrate" is "a second insulating substrate put or arranged so as to touch a
first surface of the first insulating substrate at a right angle."
Appellants argue that Goldberg's connection technique and use of a
ground plane are distinctive and structurally different from the claimed
invention. Br. 14--15. We disagree. Claims 6 and 12 both contain the open
transitional term "comprising," which permits elements in addition to those
specified to be included in the composition of the claim. In re Crish, 393
F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Goldberg's use of a ground plane does
not distinguish the reference from claim 1.
Appellants rely on figures in Goldberg to support the contention that
the first antenna board and the second antenna board are positioned separate
from each other and only shown mounted on the ground plane. Br. 15.
However, the figures merely show stages in the assembly of the eventual
three-dimensional antenna disclosed by Goldberg. See Goldberg Figs. 2,
7
Appeal2016-004183
Application 13/277,497
4a--4c, 5, 6a---6c. Appellants do not address Goldberg's teaching (pointed
out by the Examiner) that its three-dimensional antenna has first and second
antenna boards orthogonal to one another when their respective supports
sections are contacting the ground plane, and contact one another in a T-
shaped arrangement. Goldberg col. 2, 11. 35-39. This teaching indicates that
the three-dimensional antenna in Goldberg comprises a second substrate
positioned on and perpendicular to the first surface of the first substrate. 3
In the face of Goldberg's disclosure, Appellants' assertion that "the
first antenna board 170 is not positioned on and perpendicular to the second
antenna board" is not supported by the record. Cf In re Mayne, 104 F.3d
1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Even were it obvious to a practitioner of the
art, applicants have the burden to provide the PTO with evidence showing
that such is the case" (explaining why an attempted demonstration of
unexpected results, a question of fact, was unsuccessful)).
Appellants have not shown reversible error by the Examiner in
concluding that claim 1 is obvious over Goldberg in view of Allcock. 4
Because Appellants rely on the same arguments as made for claim 1 for
patentability of other pending claims, Appellants also fail to show that the
Examiner's rejection should be reversed as to these claims.
3 The Examiner acknowledges that Goldberg does not teach that the first
and second substrates are insulating substrates, and relies on Allcock for this
element. Final Act. 4. Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's
combination of references. See Br., generally.
4 Appellants' only argument regarding Allcock is that Allcock does not
remedy the alleged deficiency of Goldberg. Br. 16, 18-19.
8
Appeal2016-004183
Application 13/277,497
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-30 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) (2015).
AFFIRMED
9