Ex Parte Thoen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

13291726 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/291,726 11/08/2011
65913 7590 09/27/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven Mark Thoen
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.
81404814US03 2645
EXAMINER
ALAM, FAYYAZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN MARK THOEN
Appeal2015-004627
Application 13/291,726
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .... ,1 .. • .. ,....,-TTr'1.r-"\ l\-1,....AI/'\. £',"1 Appeuant' seeKs our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me
Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-15, which are all the
claims pending in the present application. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies NXP B.V. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Claim 9 is cancelled. App. Br. 12.
Appeal2015-004627
Application 13/291,726
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to an antenna for a near-field
communications system. Spec. 1:4--5.
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitation emphasized):
1. A near-field communications system comprising first and
second antenna coils disposed such that, in combination, they
generate a magnetic field with orthogonal components, wherein
the system is configured to generate first and second signals for
the first and second antenna coils respectively, the first and
second signals being out of phase and further comprises:
a delay line that is configured to delay a signal to be
transmitted by a predefined amount to generate the first signal,
the signal to be transmitted being generated by [L 1] a transmitter
coupled to the first antenna coil via the delay line and to the
second antenna coil.
The Rejection
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Lu (US 2009/0051491 Al; Feb. 26, 2009) and Miller (US 2007/0194931
Al; Aug. 23, 2007).
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief and
the Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are not
persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Rather, we agree with, and adopt as
our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons as set forth in the Non-Final
Action and the Answer. We further emphasize the following.
2
Appeal2015-004627
Application 13/291,726
First, Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting independent
claim 1 because "Miller fails to couple a transmitter to an antenna coil via
the delay line as claimed. Instead, Miller merely discloses quadrature
signals." App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. Appellant fails to explain persuasively
why one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the claimed delay
line to encompass Miller's direct digital synthesizer 1302 output line Q
carrying a quadrature signal. Appellant's argument reduces to an assertion
that the claim language is not disclosed verbatim in the cited references.
The doctrine of obviousness, however, is not an ipsissimis verbis test. That
is, identity of terminology is not required. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090
(CCP A 1978). Rather, the obviousness inquiry is directed to whether the
cited references would teach or suggest the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007).
Second, Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting
independent claim 6 because "Miller actually discloses signals in quadrature
rather than delay." App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. Claim 6 does not recite the
term "delay." Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument. Appellant
further contends, "Miller also fails to disclose direct generation of both
signals." Id. The Examiner finds, "Miller discloses a single module 1302 to
directly produce In-phase (I) and Quadrature (Q) signals, i.e., first and
second signals that are out of phase." We agree with the Examiner.
Appellant fails to explain persuasively why one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand the claimed first and second signals to encompass
3
Appeal2015-004627
Application 13/291,726
Miller's in-phase signal (I) and quadrature (i.e., out of phase) signal (Q).
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Third, Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting independent
claim 7 because "Miller fails to disclose a transmitter coupled to the second
antenna coil via the phase shifter." App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3. A mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements are not found in the prior art is insufficient to show error. 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (2012); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011 ). Thus we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1, 6, and 7. Appellant advances no further arguments
concerning claims 2-5, 8, and 10-15. App. Br. 8. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-8 and 10-15
as obvious.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4