Ex parte Mileski

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 1999

08130941 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 1999)

Application for patent filed October 4, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte PAUL M. MILESKI
__________
Appeal No. 96-1666
Application 08/130,9411
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before KRASS, BARRETT and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims 1-5,
9-16, and 20-23, which constitute all the claims remaining in
the application.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
An antenna for deployment on a surface, comprising:
Appeal No. 96-1666
Application 08/130,941
2
a coaxial feedline having a center conductor and a shield
at ground potential, said coaxial feedline terminating at one
end thereof at a feedpoint;
a continuous length of antenna wire having first and
second ends, said continuous length being electrically
connected at said first end to said center conductor at said
feedpoint;
a first portion of said continuous length formed from
concentric cylindrical coils of said antenna wire adjacent
said first end, each of said concentric cylindrical coils
defined by a plurality of adjacent turns of said antenna wire;
and
a second portion of said continuous length comprising an
antenna radiator extending from an innermost one of said
concentric cylindrical coils to said second end along a
substantially straight line on the surface, wherein said first
portion has an electrical inductance that can change
approximately linearly when said second portion is paid out
from said innermost one of said concentric cylindrical coils.
The examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Icenbice 3,273,153 Sep. 13,
1966
Hochstein 4,117,495 Sep. 26,
1978
Huntsman et al. 4,743,917 May 10,
1988
(Huntsman)
Pizon 5,089,827 Feb. 18,
1992
Rammos et al. 5,223,848 Jun. 29,
1993
(Rammos)
Taniyoshi 61-251209 Nov. 8,
1986
(Japanese Patent)
Appeal No. 96-1666
Application 08/130,941
3
OPINION
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Japanese Patent ‘209 in view of
Hochstein and Icenbice. The remaining claims stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Japanese Patent
‘209 in view of Hochstein and Icenbice as applied above,
further in view of various combinations of Rammos, Hunstman,
and Pizon.
Indefiniteness
The examiner contends that the claim phrase “serving as a
variable tuning inductor” renders the claims indefinite
because no specific structure is recited. The examiner’s
objection addresses the breadth, not indefiniteness, of the
claims. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection.
Obviousness
The examiner’s obviousness rejections require
interpreting the recited “concentric cylindrical coils” as
satisfied by a series of co-axial same-sized loops. For
Appeal No. 96-1666
Application 08/130,941
4
example, the examiner contends that the phrase is satisfied by
structure 104-2 shown in Figure 1 of Japanese Patent ‘209.
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and limitations appearing in the specification are not to be
read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225
USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc).
The examiner offers creative support for the proposed
interpretation. However, the interpretation is, ultimately,
unreasonable. It ignores the claim language that further
defines each coil as having “a plurality of adjacent turns,”
and is inconsistent with the specification and drawings.
Figure 2 shows what is meant by “concentric cylindrical
coils,” and the prior art as a whole fails to suggest such an
arrangement in a variable tuning inductor. Therefore, the
obviousness rejections will not be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejections are not sustained.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 96-1666
Application 08/130,941
5
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JTC/kis
Office of Counsel, Bldg. 112T
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER
Division, Newport
Newport, RI 02841-5047