Ex Parte Parsche

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2016

12369975 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

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