Ex Parte Puente Baliarda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

13047205 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/047,205 03/14/2011
27896 7590 09/19/2016
EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carles Puente Baliarda
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.
0690.0012C3 6399
EXAMINER
WIMER, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2016 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARLES PUENTE BALIARDA and
JORDI SOLER CASTANY
Appeal2015-002279
Application 13/047,205
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision2 twice rejecting claims 1-29, 33, 37--44, 46-55, and 58-71. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). For the reasons set forth below, we
reverse.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a portable communications
device comprising an antenna with a radiating element comprising two parts:
a conducting surface and a loading structure. Spec. ,-i,-i 2--4. Claims 1, 20,
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Fractus, S.A. Appeal Brief
filed July 7, 2014 ("App. Br."), 1.
2 Non-Final Office Action mailed November 29, 2013 ("Non-Final Act.").
Appeal2015-002279
Application 13/047,205
and 46 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1 and 46, reproduced
below, are representative of the claims on appeal.
1. A portable communications device comprising:
a case operable to be held in a user's hand;
a grounding element;
an antenna mounted entirely within the case and coupled
to the grounding element, the antenna being configured to both
radiate and receive electromagnetic waves corresponding to at
least two non-overlapping frequency bands, wherein:
the antenna comprises a radiating element comprising a
first part and a second part, the first part comprising at least one
conducting surface, the at least one conducting surface being
configured to radiate and receive electromagnetic waves
corresponding to at least two non-overlappingfrequency regions
and comprising a surface whose entire perimeter is a space-
filling perimeter, the space-filling perimeter including at least
ten segments connected such that no pair of adjacent segments
defines a longer straight segment, all of the segments of the
space-filling perimeter being smaller than a tenth of an
operating free-space wavelength of the antenna, and the second
part comprising a loading structure extending along at least one
path having a length between two tips, the length of the at least
one path of the loading structure being smaller than an eighth of
the longest operating free-space wavelength of the antenna;
at least one tip of the loading structure is connected along
a width dimension of the loading structure to at least a portion of
an edge of the at least one conducting surface; and
a maximum width of the loading structure is smaller than
a quarter of a longest edge of the perimeter of the at least one
conducting surface.
2
Appeal2015-002279
Application 13/047,205
46. A portable communications device comprising:
a case operable to be held in a user's hand;
a grounding element;
an antenna mounted entirely within the case and coupled to the
grounding element, the antenna being configured to both radiate and
receive electromagnetic waves corresponding to at least two non-
overlapping frequency bands, wherein:
the antenna comprises a radiating element comprising a first part and
a second part, the first part comprising at least one conducting
surface, and the second part comprising a loading structure, the
loading structure having a space-filling perimeter, the space-filling
perimeter including at least ten segments connected such that no pair
of adjacent segments defines a longer straight segment, the segments
being smaller than a tenth of an operating free-space wavelength of
the antenna;
the loading structure is connected at least at one point to an edge of
the at least one conducting surface;
the loading structure extends along at least one path having a length
between two tips;
a maximum width of the loading stn1cture is smaller than a quarter of
a longest edge of the perimeter of the at least one conducting surface;
and
a length of the at least one path of the loading structure is greater than
the width of the loading structure.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix) 32, 39--40 (emphasis added to identify disputed
limitations). Claim 20 contains a similar limitation to that emphasized in
claim 1 above. See id. at 35-36.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-29, 33, 37--44, 46-55, and 58-71 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Korisch (US 5,926,139, issued
July 20, 1999) (hereinafter "Korisch") in view of Benham et al.
3
Appeal2015-002279
Application 13/047,205
(US 5,943,025, issued August 24, 1999) (hereinafter "Benham"). Non-Final
Act. 2--4.
Claims 1-29, 33, and 37--44
We will focus on representative independent claim 1 because it
contains the argued limitations that also are present in independent claim 20.
The Examiner finds that Korisch's Figures 1 and 4 teach a radio
communications transceiver device 10 (Korisch Fig. 1) comprising an
antenna (id. at Fig. 4) with a radiating element 28' that radiates and receives
electromagnetic waves corresponding to two non-overlapping frequency
bands using two radiating portions 30 (which is resonant in the 1800 MHz
band) and 32' (which is resonant in the 800 MHz band) (id. at 3:9-19; 1:9-
15). Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner then finds that Korisch's radiating
portion 32' is a space-filling perimeter including at least ten segments
connected such that no pair of adjacent segments defines a longer straight
segment, and all of the segments of the perimeter 32' being smaller than a
tenth of an operating free-space wavelength of the antenna. Id. at 2-3.
Appellants argue that Korisch does not specify the dimensions of the
various segments of the second radiating element 32', and Korisch does not
indicate that Figure 4 is to scale. App. Br. 13. Accordingly, Appellants
contend that it cannot be established based on Korisch's disclosure that all of
the perimeter segments of portion 32' of Korisch's radiating element meet
the requirement of being smaller than a tenth of the operating wavelength of
the antenna. Id. Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Our reviewing
Court has held that "it is well established that patent drawings do not define
the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show
particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."
4
Appeal2015-002279
Application 13/047,205
Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'!, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956
(Fed. Cir. 2000). Because Korisch is silent as to whether or not the drawings
are to scale and the portions of Korisch's disclosure relied upon by the
Examiner do not give any dimensions for the segments of the second
radiating element 32', we are left to impermissibly speculate as to how
Korisch teaches a conducting surface whose entire perimeter includes at
least ten segments with all the segments being smaller than a tenth of an
operating free-space wavelength of the antenna. We decline to engage in
such speculation. "[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Further, a rejection based on § 103 must rest upon a factual basis rather than
speculation. "Where the legal conclusion [of obviousness] is not supported
by the facts it cannot stand." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of claims 1-29, 33, and 37--44.
Claims 46--55 and 58-71
As in independent claim 1, the device of independent claim 46
includes an antenna with a radiating element comprising a conducting
surface and a loading structure. In claim 46, however, the loading structure
rather than the conducting surface has a perimeter including at least ten
segments where the segments are smaller than a tenth of an operative
wavelength of the antenna.
The Examiner acknowledges that Korisch does not disclose a loading
structure, and relies on Benham's Figure 4c for this limitation. Ans. 15.
5
Appeal2015-002279
Application 13/047,205
But, as Appellants argue, the Examiner does not point out and it is not
apparent from Benham' s disclosure, how Benham' s Figure 4c discloses a
loading structure that includes at least ten segments, as in claim 46. See
App. Br. 26. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claims
46-55 and 58-71under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Korisch
and Benham.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-29, 33,
37-44, 46-55, and 58-71 is reversed.
REVERSED
6