Ex Parte NAGY

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2016

12609082 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/609,082 10/30/2009
22851 7590
Delphi Technologies, Inc,
P.O. Box 5052
MIC 483-400-402
Troy, MI 48007-5052
02/12/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
LOUIS L. NAGY
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.
DP-314085 7704
EXAMINER
SMITH, GRAHAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2016 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):
kandace.k. powell@delphi.com
patent@delphi.com
suzanne.m. britt@delphi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
Ex parte LOUIS L. NAGY
Appeal2014-001938
Application 12/609,082
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Coleman et al. (C.M.
Coleman et al., Self-Structuring Antennas, 44 IEEE Antenna's & Propagation Mag.
11 (2002); hereinafter "Coleman"). We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is stated to be Delphi Technologies, Inc. (Br. 1 ).
Appellant also points out a related appeal, i.e., the parent application 11/114,812
(Appeal No. 2011-004314) (Br. 2). The Examiner's rejections in that appeal were
affirmed in a decision mailed October 16, 2013.
Appeal2014-001938
Application 12/609,082
We AFFIRM.
Claims 1 and 9 are representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A self-structuring antenna and feed system comprising:
antenna and feed performance measuring devices;
a performance-adjusting device including at least one of
a self-structuring antenna circuit including a plurality of
antenna elements, each antenna element having one or more
connections with a plurality of switching elements arranged with the
antenna elements to, when selectively closed, electrically couple
selected ones of the antenna elements to one another to generate an
antenna configuration selected from a plurality of antenna
configurations;
at least one self-structuring feed switch operative to selectively
interconnect said antenna circuit with said signal feed system circuit;
at least one self-structuring variable impedance element switch
system operative to selectively interconnect variable impedance
elements disposed in at least one of said antenna circuit and said
• 1 ,.. 1 • • '
s1gna1 reea circun;
a non-volatile memory configured to store data representing at
least some of the plurality of antenna, feed and variable impedance
configurations;
a control arrangement operatively coupled to the plurality of
switching elements and configured to close selected ones of the
switching elements as a function of the data stored in said memory,
said control arrangement further configured to control at least one
self-structuring feed switch, and self-structuring variable impedance
switch elements, with said controller dependent upon the
performance-adjusting device; and
means operative to selectively update said data as a function of
previously selected antenna configurations.
9. A communication system comprising:
2
Appeal2014-001938
Application 12/609,082
a receiver configured to generate a control signal in response to
a radiated electromagnetic signal;
a plurality of antenna, feed and impedance elements operatively
coupled to the receiver and arranged to receive the radiated
electromagnetic signal;
a plurality of switching elements arranged with the antenna
elements to, when selectively closed, electrically couple selected ones
of the antenna elements to one another;
a plurality of switching elements to selectively connect at least
one feed switch element of said antenna circuit and a signal feed
system circuit;
a plurality of switching elements to selectively have at least one
variable impedance element disposed in at least one of said antenna
circuit and said signal feed circuit;
a non-volatile memory configured to store data representing a
plurality of antenna configurations;
a processor arrangement operatively coupled to the memory and
operatively coupled to receive the control signal and configured to
select an antenna configuration from the plurality of antenna
configurations as a function of previously selected antenna
configurations in response to the control signal and to selectively
update the data stored in the memory in response to the control signal;
and
a switch controller operatively coupled to the plurality of
switching elements and to the processor arrangement and configured
to close selected ones of the switching elements as a function of the
selected antenna and feed configurations.
Independent claims 15 and 22 respectively are directed to a "method of
configuring an antenna system" and a "processor-readable medium" corresponding
to the communication system of claim 9 (Claims App.).
3
Appeal2014-001938
Application 12/609,082
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for patentability.
However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's finding that the claimed subject matter of claims 1-28 is anticipated
within the meaning of§ 102 in view of the applied prior art of Coleman.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, including the Examiner's Response to Argument section,
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant presents similar arguments for each of the independent claims
(see, e.g., Br. 14, 18).
"[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see
if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2007). "[A ]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee."
Id.
Appellant argues that the independent claims recite: (1) a self-structuring
antenna (SSA) circuit; (2) a self-structuring feed switch (SSF); and (3) a self-
structuring variable impedance element (SSVIE) (Br. 13). Appellant
acknowledges that Coleman discloses a self-structuring antenna (SSA) circuit, but
states that Coleman is silent as to the self-structuring feed switch and the self-
structuring impedance element (id. at 13, 16). Appellant discusses various other
prior art references that are not relied upon by the Examiner (id. at 14, 15) and then
states:
4
Appeal2014-001938
Application 12/609,082
In brief~ the present Self-Structuring Subsystems Application
teaches the use of a hybrid or combination of multiple Self-
Structuring Subsystems to overcome the limitations of the Coleman
et al. Self-Structuring Antenna (i.e., SSA template only) approach,
and a resulting improvement for overall antenna system performance.
(Id. at 16.)
These arguments fail to point out reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection.
First, as pointed out by the Examiner, the plain meaning of "at least one of'
as recited in claim 1 means that only "at least one of' the elements listed after that
phrase is required (Final Rej. 13; Ans. 2). Appellant does not directly respond to
this claim interpretation issue (Br. generally; no responsive reply brief has been
filed). Thus, contrary to Appellant's arguments the claimed subject matter does
not require a combination of multiple Self-Structuring Subsystems. Appellant also
does not sufficiently dispute the Examiner's findings that Coleman discloses a self-
strttcturing antenna and feed system \~1ith antenna and feed performance measuring
devices, and a performance-adjusting device that includes "at least one of' the
remaining claim limitations. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's § 102 rejection of
claim 1 (Ans. 2).
Next, regarding the remaining independent claims (i.e. 9, 15 and 22), the
Examiner found that while these claims are narrower than claim 1 since they do
not recite "at least one of," the claim language nonetheless reasonably
encompasses the antenna system of Coleman (id. at 3-11 ). The Examiner finds
that Coleman teaches multiple antenna elements that act both as antenna radiating
elements and as feed elements for other antenna elements (id. at 3). As such, the
Examiner finds that a first portion of Coleman's antenna elements can reasonably
be interpreted to be the claimed antenna elements, and a second portion of the
5
Appeal2014-001938
Application 12/609,082
antenna elements which act to feed the first portion can be interpreted as the
claimed feed elements (id.). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Coleman
teaches a plurality of switches between the antenna elements that are encompassed
by the recited "at least one variable impedance element" of claim 9 since switches
can change between high and low impedance values based on whether the switches
are open or closed (id.). As pointed out by the Examiner, Appellant's assertions of
functional differences or advantages in the claimed invention over Coleman's
disclosure are conclusory and not supported by evidence (id. at 4, 11 ).
Appellant has not, with any specificity, presented arguments to rebut the
Examiner's claim interpretation vis-a-vis claims 9, 15, and 22. Appellant has thus
not presented evidence of reversible error to dispute the Examiner's position that
the self-structuring antenna structure of Coleman can reasonably be interpreted to
include the self-structuring antenna circuit, self-structuring feed switch, and self-
structuring variable impedance elements recited in claim 9 (or as in corresponding
claims 15, 22). Similarly, to the extent Appellant separately argues any of the
dependent claims (Br. 16-18), Appellant has not presented evidence of reversible
error in the Examiner's application of Coleman regarding any of the dependent
claims (e.g., Ans. 5-11; no responsive briefhas been filed).
On this record, Appellant has not sufficiently pointed out any reversible
error to dispute the Examiner's position that the claimed antenna elements/steps
encompass the antenna elements/steps of Coleman. Therefore, a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner's position (Ans., Br., generally). Appellant
has not directed our attention to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to
establish that the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonable, nor has Applicant
pointed to any portion of the Specification that limits the claim language so as to
6
Appeal2014-001938
Application 12/609,082
exclude the Examiner's interpretation of the antenna circuit, feed circuit, and
variable impedance elements, as well as the other claimed elements/steps.
Based on the above, we affirm the Examiner's§ 102 rejection of all the
claims on appeal.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
7