Ex Parte ParscheDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 13, 201612369975 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/369,975 02/12/2009 74701 7590 05/17/2016 ADDMG - Harris 255 S ORANGE A VENUE SUITE 1401 ORLANDO, FL 32801 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Francis Eugene Parsche 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. GCSD-2008 (61656) 4857 EXAMINER ISLAM, HASAN Z ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2845 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/1712016 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): creganoa@addmg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANCIS EUGENE P ARSCHE Appeal2014-008418 Application 12/369,975 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, CARLA KRIVAK, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-008418 Application 12/369,975 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-23, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Illustrative Claim 1. An antenna comprising: a dielectric substrate having first and second opposing sides and a plurality of electrically conductive traces thereon configured to define a half-loop antenna element extending along an arcuate path on a first side of said dielectric substrate and having spaced apart first and second ends, first and second base strips electrically connected together and aligned on the respective first and second opposing sides of the dielectric substrate adjacent the spaced apart first and second ends of the half-loop antenna element, and a feed strip on the second side of said dielectric substrate and aligned with the first end of the half-loop antenna element and electrically connected thereto; and at least one capacitive element associated with the half- loop antenna element. Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 3-9, 16, and 18-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yu (US 7,821,469 B2; issued Oct. 26, 2010) and Wong (US 4,980,693; issued Dec. 25, 1990). Claims 2, 10-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yu, Wong, and Kaloi (US 4,197,544; issued Apr. 8, 1980). 2 Appeal2014-008418 Application 12/369,975 ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made in the Final Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Claim 1 recites "a feed strip on the second side of said dielectric substrate and aligned with the first end of the half-loop antenna element and electrically connected thereto." The Examiner finds Figure 1 of Yu shows a feed strip 100 on the first side of a dielectric substrate and aligned with the first end of the half-loop antenna element and electrically connected thereto. See Ans. 12. The Examiner finds Figure 4(b) of Wong shows a feed strip 24 on a second side of a dielectric substrate and electrically connected to an antenna element 12 on a first side of the dielectric substrate. See Ans. 12- 13. The Examiner concludes placing the feed strip of Yu on the second side of the dielectric as taught by Wong yields the predictable result of attenuating adverse antenna coupling to the feed line. Ans. 13. Appellant contends moving both the feed line 100 and the base strip 3 21 from the first side of the dielectric substrate of Yu to the second side would render Yu unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3. However, the Examiner's rejection discusses moving the feed line 100 shown in Figure 1 of Yu to the second side of the substrate as shown in Figure 4(b) of Wong, not both the feed line 100 and the base strip 321 of Yu. Appellant's contention does not address the combination made by the Examiner. Appellant does not present persuasive evidence or argument to show placing the feed line 100 of Yu on a second side of a substrate as shown in Figure 4(b) of Wong was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one 3 Appeal2014-008418 Application 12/369,975 of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). We sustain the rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-23 which fall with claim 1. DECISION The rejections of claims 1-23 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation