Ex Parte Steigerwald et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201612256467 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/256,467 10/22/2008 Todd Steigerwald MTNCUSl 5251 58417 7590 12/22/2016 TTF.TN7. TtRFTHFR PC EXAMINER G2 Technology Law P.O. Box 202858 TALUKDER, MD K AUSTIN, TX 78720 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2648 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): hgrether @ g2techlaw. com hgrether @ me. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TODD STEIGERWALD, TOM BENTLEY, JERRY MAYFIELD, and BRAD VIER Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 An oral hearing was held in this case on Dec. 9, 2016. 2 Appellants identify Motion Computing, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention generally relates to electrical connections in mobile devices between electromagnetic wireless transmitters/receivers and the antennas which transmit and/or receive electromagnetic wireless signals. Spec. 12. The invention employs the use of flexible printed circuit (FPC) technology to make connectors that are less susceptible to kinking, crushing, crimping, or other hazards. Spec. 1 52. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. An mobile electronic device with a wireless transmitter and/or receiver comprising: a. RF circuit board with circuitry for generating and/or receiving an RF signal; b. an antenna for transmitting and/or receiving an RF signal; and c. a multilayer flexible circuit board cable with a conductor trace for carrying the signal between the RF circuit board circuitry and the antenna, and the conductive trace is sandwiched between a plurality of shielding trace layers. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1,6, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wesselman (US 2008/0202807 Al, Aug. 28, 2008). Final Act. 2. 2. Claims 1—153 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hankui (US 2004/0127249 Al, July 1, 2004) and Quan (US 2008/0088519 Al, Apr. 17, 2008). 3 Although the Examiner appears to omit claims 6 and 10 from the relevant section heading of the Final Action’s statement of rejection, claims 6 and 10 2 Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 3. Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hankui and Hill (US 2008/0316115 Al, Dec. 25, 2008). ANALYSIS I. Anticipation Rejections A. Claims 1 and 11 Claim 1 recites “a multilayer flexible circuit board cable with a conductor trace for carrying the signal between the RF circuit board circuitry and the antenna.” Claim 11 recites a nearly identical limitation. We take claim 1 as representative of the two claims. The Examiner finds paragraph 104 of Wesselman teaches the disputed limitation by disclosing an antenna 410 of a flip phone, and a shielded flexible circuit 440 electrically connecting the screen of a flip phone 430 with the main body the flip phone 420. Final Act. 2—3. Appellants argue “ Wesselman’s flexible circuit 440 connects the screen 430 to the circuitry in the body 420 of the phone.” App. Br. 12. According to Appellants, “ Wesselman does not teach, disclose or suggest anything regarding the connection of the antenna 410 and the circuitry in the body 420 of the phone 400.” App. Br. 13. In other words, Appellants argue that although the flexible circuit connects the screen to the body of the phone, the flexible circuit does not connect the body of the phone to the antenna and thus does not teach “a multilayer flexible circuit board cable . . . for carrying the signal between the RF circuit board circuitry and the antenna,” as recited in claim 1. are expressly addressed within the body of the anticipation rejection and are therefore considered as rejected under this rejection. See Final Act. 6—7. 3 Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Figure 9B of Wesselman illustrates Wesselman’s flip phone and depicts the configuration of the screen 430, the main body 420, the shielded flexible circuit 440, and the antenna 410. Figure 9B is reproduced below with added annotations. Figure 9B of Wesselman illustrating a flexible circuit that provides communication between the screen and body of a flip phone. Wesselman explains that “[t]he body 420 comprises circuitry which processes data transmitted and received by the antenna.” Wesselman 1104 (emphasis omitted). But, as can be seen in Figure 9B and as described by Wesselman, the “shielded flexible circuit 440 . . . provides an electrical connection between the body 420 and the screen 430,” but does not provide a connection between the body and the antenna. Wesselman 1105 (emphasis omitted). Thus, RF signals generated by the circuitry in the body 4 Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 of the flip phone would not be carried from that circuitry to the antenna by the flexible shielded circuitry, as claim 1 requires. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that Wesselman anticipates independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we also find the Examiner has not established Wesselman anticipates independent claim 11, which contains substantially the same disputed limitation and which was rejected on the same basis. See Final Act. 3 B. Claims 6 and 10 Appellants argue “Claim 6 for example requires that the flexible circuit board have an ‘unshielded antenna trace section.’” App. Br. 13. According to Appellants, “[t]he only antenna discussed or shown in Wesselman is 410 (shown in Figs 9A and 9B) which is not part of the flexible circuit 440 (only shown in Fig 9B).” App. Br. 13—14. Indeed, according to Appellants “[n]one of [the cited portions of Wesselman] relate to or suggest anything about an antenna section being part of the flexible circuit board.” App. Br. 14. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that the shielded flexible circuit 440 has an antenna trace section, as required by claim 6. The only antenna shown in Wesselman’s flip phone is antenna 410, which is not part of the shielded flexible circuit 440. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has not established Wesselman anticipates independent claim 6 and its dependent claim 10. 5 Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 II. Obviousness Rejections over Hankui and Quan A. Claim 1 The Examiner finds Hankui teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, including an RF circuit, an antenna, a multilayer circuit board with a conductor for carrying a signal between the circuit board circuitry and the antenna, and that the circuit is sandwiched between two shielding layers, except that it does not teach that the circuit board is a flexible circuit board cable and the conductive trace is sandwiched between shielding layers. Final Act. 4—5; see also Ans. 2—3. The Examiner relies upon Quan to fill this deficiency and finds Quan teaches a multilayer flexible circuit board cable with a conductive trace sandwiched in shielding layers. Final Act. 5 (citing Quan, Abstact). Appellants argue Quan does not employ any cables. App. Br. 16. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or reasoning that Quan’s flexible circuit board does not teach a flexible circuit board cable. Quan discloses “[a]n antenna array [that] includes a folded thin flexible circuit board” and that “[a] plurality of active RF circuit devices is attached to the folded [flexible] circuit board in signal communication with the conductor trace pattern.” Quan, Abstract. Thus, Quan teaches a flexible circuit board that connects RF circuitry with an antenna. This is similar to the claimed multilayer flexible circuit board cable, which also connects RF circuitry and an antenna. Thus, we find Quan’s teaching of an antenna array including a flexible circuit board is sufficient to teach or suggest to one of skill in the art a “multilayer flexible circuit board cable,” as recited in claim 1. 6 Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 Appellants further argue that “there is no suggestion to replace the cable or the cable and antenna in Hankui with a flexible circuit board cable board cable [sic] or a flexible circuit board cable with antenna.” App. Br. 18. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner is not required to make a finding of a “suggestion” for replacing the cable of Hankui with the flexible circuit board of Quan, as Appellants argue. See KSRInt’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (“The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”) Instead, what is required is an “‘articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning’” for combining known elements in the manner required by the claim. Id. at 418 (citation omitted). The Examiner notes that both Hankui and Quan are from the same field of endeavor and that they both disclose antennas having circuit boards. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds: one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in modifying improved efficiency of transmit and receive wireless signals, incorporating a flexible multilayer printed circuit shielded RF conductor for connecting transmitter and receiver circuitry to an associated RF antenna. We find this to be an articulation of a rational reason to combine Hankui and Quan. And finally, Appellants argue Quan does not suggest “that a flexible circuit could provide full shielding without being folded, let alone that it could be used to make any kind of cable.” App. Br. 19-20. This argument is also unpersuasive. The Examiner finds Hankui teaches a circuit that is 7 Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 sandwiched between two shielding layers. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. Appellants do not rebut this finding and for this reason alone, Appellants arguments are unpersuasive. Furthermore, the Examiner also finds Quan teaches a flexible circuit board with a conductive trace sandwiched in shielding layers. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5 (“The subarray 110 includes a thin laminate sheet 112, which may include a flexible dielectric substrate 112B, with a conductive layer pattern 112A formed on a first, top surface of the dielectric sheet and a conductor pattern 112C formed on a second, lower surface of the dielectric substrate.”). Appellants only argue that Quan’s flexible circuit does not provide “full shielding without being folded.” App. Br. 19-20. But we note that claims 1, 6, and 11 do not require full shielding. Thus, Appellants do not provide persuasive reasoning or evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding Quan. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6 and 11 for which Appellants rely on the same arguments as those discussed for claim 1. See App. Br. 20. B. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13 Although Appellants argue claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13 separately, Appellants merely repeat the same arguments as those made for claim 1, and add only a conclusory statement that the cited references do not teach the additional limitation of these claims. We find these arguments to be unpersuasive. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted 8 Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13. C. Claims 4, 9, and 14 Claim 4, which depends from claim 3 requires “narrowly spaced channels” connecting shielding trace layers where the “narrowly spaced channels overlap without contacting each other.” App. Br. 27 (Claims App’x). The Examiner relies upon Figures 3C, 6, and 13A of Hankui as teaching narrowly spaced channels overlapping without contacting each other. Final Act. 6. In addition to arguing that Hankui does not teach flexible printed circuit boards and that Quan does not have cables, Appellants argue that the channels in Figures 3C, 6, and 13 A of Hankui are not overlapping, as claims 4, 9, and 14 require. App. Br. 21. We agree with Appellants. Figures 3C, 6, and 13A, and their associated descriptions do not appear to disclose channels (or via-holes) being narrowly spaced and overlapping each other. Other than simply citing to these figures, the Examiner does not provide any explanation establishing these figures as disclosing narrowly spaced channels that overlap each other. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 9 and 14 which were rejected on the same basis. Final Act. 6, 9. 9 Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 D. Claims 5, 10, and 15 Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation “where the shielding trace layers are conductively connected on the outer edges of the flexible circuit board along the length of the conductive trace.” App. Br. 27 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds Hankui teaches this disputed limitation. Final Act (citing Hankui 1 34, Figs. 9, 10, and 11). Appellants argue that Figures 9, 10, and 11 of Hankui “show channels inside the outer edge not on the outer edge. Even if they were on the edge they would not be along the length of a conductive trace that is shielded.” App. Br. 22. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Figures 9, 10, and 11 of Hankui show channels (via holes) along the outer edge of conductive layers. See also Hankui 134 (“The via 25 hole used herein is such that a conductive layer is formed around an air hole. The via-hole penetrating a metallic pattern.”) (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 135 (“Arrays of via holes 5 are formed to extend along straight lines on both lateral sides of the metallic planes . . . .”) (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Hankui teaches the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 10 and 15, for which Appellants make the same arguments. See App. Br. 22—24. III. Obviousness Rejections over Hankui and Hill A. Claims 16—18 Appellants argue claims 16—18 “require a UFL connection of the Flexible Circuit board cable to the RF circuit board.” App. Br. 24. 10 Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 According to Appellants “[t]he [Ejxaminer cites Fig 12 of Hill which illustrates a UFL connections 110 of antennas 112 to coaxial cables 5 6 A— there is no RF circuit board shown in the Fig 12 cited by the Examiner. . . . There is no suggestion in Hill to use a UFF connector to directly connect two circuit boards.” App. Br. 24—25. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument because it attacks Hill individually and does not address the Examiner’s findings as a whole. The Examiner finds Hankui teaches a multilayer circuit board with a conductor connecting an RF circuit board with an antenna. Final Act. 4. Hill is relied upon to show that such connections can be made using mini-UFF coaxial connectors. Thus, the RF circuit board that Appellants argue Hill fails to disclose is disclosed by Hankui. Furthermore, Hill teaches that cable 56A connects to the antenna via a UFF connection “to transmit and receive radio- frequency signals.” Hill 1108. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Hill does teach RF circuitry connected to coaxial cable via a UFF connection. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17 and 18 which were argued together with claim 16. See App. Br. 24—25. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) are reversed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3, 5—8, 10—13, and 15—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. 11 Appeal 2015-001799 Application 12/256,467 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation