Ex Parte Pristas et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 18, 2012

10360941 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/360,941 02/06/2003 James Pristas 67,036-019/B05634/HSC0117 4142
26096 7590 04/19/2012
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
LU, ZHIYU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES PRISTAS and DAN HUGHES
____________

Appeal 2009-013231
Application 10/360,941
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013231
Application 10/360,941

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to an antenna structure having
distributed apertures for use in a wireless network installed in an enclosed
space (see Spec. ¶¶ [1] and [7]). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the
invention, reads as follows:
1. A wireless communication system for an aircraft,
comprising:
an aircraft;
a plurality of wireless devices;
a distributed aperture antenna mounted to the aircraft,
comprising
a conductive core, and
a shield surrounding the conductive core and
attached to the conductive core, wherein the shield has a
plurality of apertures that form a plurality of energy
leakage paths, wherein the energy leakage paths generate
a plurality of electric fields for communicating with the
plurality of wireless devices; and
a base station within the aircraft in communication with
the distributed aperture antenna.
The Rejections
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 8, and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kuo (US 4,428,078), Holtum (US 3,691,488),
and Bartram (US 5,465,395).
Appeal 2009-013231
Application 10/360,941

3
Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuo, Holtum, Bartram, and Loposer (US 5,230,085).
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuo, Holtum, Bartram, Loposer, and Griswold (US
2003/0156566 A1).1
Appellants’ Contentions
With respect to claims 1-2, 4, 7, 8, and 10-14, Appellants contend that
the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as obvious over Kuo, Holtum,
Bartram because the proposed modifications to Kuo “is not just a ‘minimum
requirement in design preference,’ as suggested in the Examiner’s Answer”
(App. Br. 7). Appellants specifically argue that such modification would
destroy the close relationship between the pickup loop 30 and the
transmission line 29, as shown in Figure 7 of Kuo, and therefore, teaches
away from the combination (App. Br. 7-8).
With respect to claims 15-17, Appellants contend that there is no
suggestion or teaching for making the proposed combination to move the
conductor of Kuo to the upper portion of the cabin because it would destroy
the communication arrangement of Kuo (App. Br. 8-9).
With respect to claim 20, Appellants provide similar argument that the
low frequency communications system of Kuo would not properly operate
with the 802.11 protocol of Griswold (App. Br. 9).
Issue on Appeal

1 Separate patentability was not argued for the remaining claims rejected
under § 103 on various combinations including Kuo, Holtum, Bartram (App.
Br. 10).
Appeal 2009-013231
Application 10/360,941

4
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
Kuo, Holtum, Bartram because there is no suggestion or teaching for making
the proposed combination?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 13-17) in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address
specific findings for emphasis as follows.
We note that the Examiner properly concludes that the proposed
combination would provide the benefit of improved wireless communication
by using the leaky cable disclosed in Holtum and Bartram in the system of
Kuo (Ans. 13-14). We also agree with the Examiner’s position (Ans. 14)
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the necessary
adjustments to the system of Kuo in order to use the antenna configuration
of Holtum and Bartram. In fact, contrary to Appellants’ assertion (Reply Br.
1-2), the proposed modification allows for placement of the distributed
aperture antenna in a location other than those specified by Kuo based on
design requirements that are known by the skilled artisan. In that regard, the
Supreme Court has indicated that:
[It is error to] assum[e] that a person of ordinary skill
attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements
of prior art designed to solve the same problem . . . . Common
sense teaches [. . .] that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of
Appeal 2009-013231
Application 10/360,941

5
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (citation omitted).
Additionally, Appellant has presented no evidence that the required
placement of the antenna configuration of Holtum and Bartram in Kuo was
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
“represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418-19).
Regarding Appellants’ contentions challenging the propriety of the
rejection of claims 15-17 and 20 and whether the proposed combination
teaches or suggests all the claimed features, we agree with the Examiner’s
analysis and reasoning (see Ans. 14-16). We specifically find that the
Examiner has articulated how the claimed features are met by the reference
teachings with some rational underpinning to combine Kuo, Holtum, and
Bartram with Loposer or Griswold. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in combining Kuo, Holtum, and
Bartram, alone or further with Loposer or Griswold, to reject claims 1-2, 4,
7, 8, 10-17, and 20.
2. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are not patentable.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-20 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2009-013231
Application 10/360,941

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke