Ex parte QUAN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 18, 1999

08246538 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 18, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 20, 1994. According1
to appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application No. 07/589,965 filed September 28, 1990, now
abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was
not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CLIFTON QUAN
____________
Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,5381
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and KRASS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 13 through 17 and 19 through 21, constituting all the
claims remaining in the application.
The invention is directed to an antipodal flared notch
radiator with separate transmit and receive ports.
Representative independent claim 21 is reproduced as
follows:
21. An integrated antipodal flared notch radiating
element for radiating energy into, or receiving energy from,
free space, said radiating element having separate, integral
transmit and receive connections which are isolated from each
other, said integral antipodal flared notch radiating element
comprising:
a planar dielectric board having first and second
opposed surfaces, the first surface having a first conductive
pattern formed thereon, the second surface having a second
conductive pattern formed thereon;
wherein said first and second conductive patterns
cooperate to define an antipodal slotline adjacent a flared
end thereof and a broadside coupled strip transmission line
region which transitions into said antipodal slotline, said
broadside coupled strip transmission line region formed by
first and second conductive strips overlying each other on
opposite sides of the dielectric board;
said first conductive pattern further defining first
and second microstripline conductors adjacent a
receive/transmit port end of said radiating element, said
first microstripline conductor comprising a transmit signal
connection integrated with said radiating element, said second
microstripline conductor comprising a receive signal
connection integrated with said radiating element;
Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
This claim is as presented in the amendment after final2
(Amendment D) filed August 7, 1995 (Paper No. 11) which was
indicated by the examiner in the answer as being entered.
3
said second conductive pattern further defining a
ground plane region adjacent said transmit/receive port end of
said element and underlying said microstripline conductors,
said ground plane region transitioning to said second
conductive strip comprising said broadside coupled strip
transmission line region; and
a circulator device integrated with said broadside
coupled strip transmission line region such that the
circulator device is mounted on said dielectric board and
includes a terminal connected to one of said conductive strips
comprising said broadside coupled strip transmission line
region, said circulator device connecting said broadside
coupled strip transmission line region to said first
microstripline conductor without a balun, and connecting said
broadside coupled strip transmission line region to said
second microstripline conductor without a balun, said
circulator device electrically isolating said first
microstripline conductor from said second microstripline
conductor at microwave frequencies, said circulator device
including a first terminal connected to said first
microstripline conductor, a second terminal connected to said
first conductive strip comprising said broadside coupled strip
transmission line region, and a third terminal connected to
said second microstripline conductor.2
The examiner relies on the following references:
Nester 4,500,887 Feb. 19,
1985
Fassett 4,509,055 Apr. 2,
1985
Sharma 4,782,346 Nov. 1,
1988
Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
4
Lamberty 4,918,409 Apr. 17,
1990
Gazit, "Improved design of the Vivaldi antenna," IEE
Proceedings, Vol. 135, Part H, No. 2 (April 1988) pp. 89-92.
Claims 17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 13 through 17 and 19 through 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
cites Gazit, Fassett and Lamberty with regard to claims 15, 16
and 21, adding Sharma and Nester to this combination with
regard to claims 13, 14, 17, 19 and 20.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We turn, first, to the rejection of claims 17, 19 and 20
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.
The examiner contends that the language of independent
claim 17 is indefinite. More particularly, the examiner
contends that the language
Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
5
...force said antipodal slotline of said radiating
element to operate as a coplanar slotline-type of
structure by concentrating fields
is indefinite because the meaning of “slotline-type of
structure” is unclear since it has no specifically defined
structure in the antenna art. Further, it is the examiner’s
position that “...by concentrating fields” is indefinite and
adds to the confusion of a “slotline-type of structure”
because “any slot radiator has a concentration of the electric
field, but not necessarily the magnetic field” [answer-page
4].
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 17, 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because we find no
confusion caused by the identified claim language. It appears
clear, from reference to page 6 of the instant specification,
that while the conductor strips of the upper and lower
patterns 66 and 64 are not coplanar, the arrangement recited
in claim 17 and shown in Figure 4 allows the antipodal
slotline of the radiating element to appear as a coplanar
slotline structure by operating as such, i.e., as “a coplanar
slotline-type of structure.” The concentration of the
electric fields is what allows such an operation. The claim,
Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
6
as amended, calls for “concentrating fields.” This may be a
broader term than the examiner would like, but it is clearly
supported at page 6, line 23 of the specification and we find
nothing indefinite about the term.
We turn, now, to the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. 103.
We note, initially, that in a decision of March 21, 1994,
this Board sustained a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of
similar claims over the same three primary references employed
herein. However, while similar, the instant claims are
amended versions of the previous claims and the instant claims
are narrower than those previously before us.
The examiner rejects claims 15, 16 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
103 over Gazit, Fassett and Lamberty for reasons similar to
ours in sustaining the rejection in our earlier decision.
However, the claims have been amended. While we had earlier
dismissed [see page 6 of the earlier decision] appellant’s
argument, regarding incorporation of a circulator into a
single flared notch radiating element to provide integral
transmit and receive connections or ports and that this went
against conventional wisdom, as not being commensurate in
Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
7
scope with the claim language, it is clear that the instant
claims now recite an “integrated antipodal flared notch
radiating element” and that that element comprises, inter
alia, microstripline conductors connecting to transmit and
receive ports “integrated” with the radiating element and a
circulator device “integrated” with the broadside coupled
strip transmission line region.
That is, in our view, the instant claims now make it
clear that it is a single flared notch radiating element
having all of the claimed elements integrated thereon with
which we deal. We agree with appellant that not one of the
applied references appears to suggest the incorporation of a
circulator device into the radiating element itself in order
to provide for separate and isolated transmit and receive
ports within the radiating element itself. It appears that,
as indicated by appellant at page 13 of the brief, the
references all teach that the circulator is connected to a
transmit/receive module and not integrated into the radiating
element as claimed.
We disagree with the examiner when it is stated in the
answer, at page 9, that it is “not an issue of incorporating a
Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
While the claims do not specifically recite the term3
“single,” it is clear from the claims that we deal with “An
integrated antipodal flared notch radiating element” and “the
integrated antipodal flared notch radiating element” [emphasis
ours], indicating that, indeed, it is a “single” radiating
element which is required.
8
circulator in a single...flared notch radiator.” Indeed, that
is the issue because this is what is now required by the
instant claims and, in our view, the examiner has not made a3
satisfactory showing of why such a single flared notch
radiator would have integrated thereon those elements recited
in the instant claims so that the radiating element itself
would have separate and isolated transmit and receive ports.
With regard to instant independent claim 17, this claim
additionally requires first and second dielectric sheets to
sandwich the flared end of the radiating element in order to
force the slotline to “operate as a coplanar slotline-type of
structure by concentrating fields.” While Figure 18 of
Sharma, employed by the examiner to teach this claimed
feature, may show a “sandwiching” provided by dielectric
sheets, these dielectric plates do not force an antipodal
slotline structure to operate as a coplanar slotline-type
structure, as required by instant claim 17. We find no
Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
9
teaching in Nester to remedy this deficiency in Sharma, a
deficiency shared by the other applied references.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17, 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and claims 13 through
17 and 19 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
bae
Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
10
S. E. Walters
Hughes Aircraft Company
Building C1
Mail Station A126, P.O. Box 80028
Los Angeles, CA 90080-0028