Ex Parte MacDonald et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

12945828 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/945,828 11/12/2010
34814 7590 08/29/2016
NXP-LARSON NEWMAN, LLP
6501 William Cannon Drive West
Austin, TX 78735
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James MacDonald
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.
RA48488ZK 8638
EXAMINER
MCGUE, FRANK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES MACDONALD, WILLIAM III MCKINZIE,
WALTER P ARMON, and LA WREN CE RUBIN
Appeal2014-008833
Application 12/945,828
Technology Center 3600
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, MARK A. GEIER, and
JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James MacDonald et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-008833
Application 12/945,828
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A device comprising:
a radar module comprising a connector to interface with an
external receptacle, the radar module to receive a millimeter
radio frequency (RF) signal that includes a desired frequency
range reflected from an object, the radar module including:
a printed circuit board (PCB) having a first major surface
and a second major surface, the first major surface overlying and
coplanar to the second major surface;
a parabolic structure comprising a reflective surface to
reflect the received millimeter RF signal;
an electromagnetic (EM) absorber between the PCB and
the reflective surface, the EM absorber including an opening
aligned with an antenna structure, the EM absorber being a
graded absorber to absorb a frequency range of the received
millimeter RF signal received from undesirable directions.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Snyder
Hofer' 192
Reger
Hofer '351
Tamura
Yonak
us 4,096,457
us 4,697,192
us 4,800,389
us 5,191,351
us 5,508,696
US 2010/0033389 Al
2
June 20, 1978
Sept. 29, 1987
Jan.24, 1989
Mar. 2, 1993
Apr. 16, 1996
Feb. 11, 2010
Appeal2014-008833
Application 12/945,828
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-9, 13-18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yonak, Reger, and Hofer '192. 1
II. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yonak, Reger, Hofer' 192, and Hofer '351.
III. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Y onak, Reger, Hofer '192, and Tamura.
IV. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Y onak, Hofer '192, Snyder, and Tamura.
V. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Y onak, Hofer '192, and Tamura.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Y onak, Reger, and
Hofer ' 192 disclose or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 1.
See Final Act. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hofer "describes
an EM graded absorber 40 being between the PCB and the reflective
surface." Id. at 3.
Appellants argue that "none of the relied-upon references, either alone
or in combination, disclose such an arrangement" (i.e. an electromagnetic
(EM) absorber between the PCB and the reflective surface). Appeal Br. 9.
1 Although, the Examiner provides a separate statement of the rejection of
claim 23 (Final Act. 8), claim 23 is subject to the same ground of rejection
as claims 1-9 and 13-18. See Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2014-008833
Application 12/945,828
Responding to this argument, 2 the Examiner finds that "Fig. 3 of Hofer '192
shows EM ... absorber (26) between PCB (28) and the reflective surface (32,
34, 3 6, col. 3, lines 15-19)." Ans. 11.
Neither the Examiner's original finding nor the new finding are
supported by Hofer' 192. The original finding is not supported because as
shown in Fig. 3 Hofer '192' s graded absorber 40 is located on the outermost
surface of the antenna; and thus, is not between a printed circuit board and a
reflective surface. See Hofer '192, Fig. 3. The new finding is flawed
because (1) Hofer '192' s elements 32, 34, and 36 are absorbers and not a
reflective surface and (2) element 26 does not appear to be graded. See
Hofer '192 at 3: 15-19, Fig. 3. Thus, these findings are in error.
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
claim 1, and claims 1-9 and 13-18, which depend therefrom. Independent
claim 23 also requires "an electromagnetic (EM) absorber between the PCB
and the reflective surface." Appeal Br. 30. The rejection relies upon the
same erroneous findings pertaining to this limitation. See Final Act. 8; Ans.
11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 for
the same reason.
Rejections 11-V
Rejections II (claim 12), III (claims 19 and 20), IV (claim 21) and V
(claim 22) rely upon the same erroneous findings pertaining to Hofer '192 as
Rejection I. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 12 and 19-22.
2 The Examiner's response is actually directed to the same argument made
with respect to claim 23. See Appeal Br. 19; Ans. 11.
4
Appeal2014-008833
Application 12/945,828
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
5