Ex Parte Schaffer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2007

10046596 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte Michael J. Schaffer
___________

Appeal No. 2006-3233
Application No. 10/046,596
Technology Center 2800
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before HAIRSTON, DIXON, and MACDONALD, Administrative Patent
Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §134 from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 12, and 14. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11,
13, and 15-24 are objected to by the Examiner and are indicated as allowable
if rewritten in independent form.
Appeal 2006-3233
Application 10/046,596

We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

BACKGROUND

Appellant's invention relates to providing integrated chassis antenna for
processor-based devices. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 14, which are reproduced below.
1. A wireless computer network comprising:
a wireless network computer having a chassis;
an integrated chassis antenna that is coupled to the
computer chassis;
a first wireless network device coupled to the
integrated chassis antenna; and
a second wireless network device operative to
communicate with the wireless network computer.

14. A method comprising:
fabricating a chassis; and
integrating an antenna with the chassis.
PRIOR ART
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims is:
Crawford US 6,456,242 B1 Sep. 24, 2002
2
Appeal 2006-3233
Application 10/046,596

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
being anticipated by Crawford.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Sep. 29, 2003) for the reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Jul. 21, 2003) and
Reply Brief (filed Nov. 24, 2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art
reference, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations that
follow.
Appellant argues that the term “integrated” has been expressly defined
at page 8 of the original specification. We find that the Specification at page
8, ll. 18-20, states “[a]s used herein, ‘integrated’ or ‘integrating’ means to
form or forming from material that forms a chassis and remaining
contiguous, in part, with the chassis.” We find that Appellant has expressly
defined these terms and it is unreasonable for the Examiner to interpret the
claims in a manner inconsistent with this definition. Since Crawford teaches
that the disclosed antenna is an add-on after the formation of the chassis, the
1 We do not find a statement of rejection for dependent claim 12 in the
Examiner’s text of the rejection, but the claim is similar to claim 7 so we
assume the Examiner intended the same rationale to apply to claim 12.
3
Appeal 2006-3233
Application 10/046,596

antenna cannot be formed of the same material and remain contiguous with
the chassis. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 4, and 9 and their dependent claims 7 and 12.

With respect to independent claim 14, we reach a different conclusion
since we cannot interpret the language of the claim in light of the
specification since there would be no difference between independent claim
14 and dependent claim 15. Dependent claim 15 recites “integrating the
antenna includes forming the antenna from a part of the chassis and forming
the antenna with an edge contiguous with the chassis.”
If we interpret the “integrating” term as Appellant as indicated in the
specification, then dependent claim 15 is duplicative of that claim language
which would not be proper. Therefore, for independent claim 14 and
dependent claim 15 to be distinct they must be different in scope and
independent claim 14 must have been intended by Appellant to be broader in
scope than the definition as advanced by Appellant. Therefore, we find that
independent claim 14 cannot be reasonably read with the definition at page 8
in the Specification. Therefore, we find that the Examiner was not
unreasonable in the interpretation given to independent claim 14 and in the
application of the teachings of Crawford to independent claim 14. Therefore
we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 14.

CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have reversed the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and affirmed the rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
4
Appeal 2006-3233
Application 10/046,596

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JLD/ce

5
Appeal 2006-3233
Application 10/046,596

TROP PRUNER & HU, PC
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON TX 77057-2631

6