Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201713247358 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2017) 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. 9342-529 3004 EXAMINER HOLECEK, PATRICK R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2845 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/247,358 09/28/2011 54414 7590 0: MYERS BIGEL, P.A. P.O. BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 Shuai Zhang 02/24/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHUAI ZHANG, SAILING HE, KUN ZHAO, and ZHINONG YING Appeal 2015-006367 Application 13/247,358 Technology Center 2800 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, GEORGE C. BEST, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 18 and 20 as unpatentable over Schlub3 in view of Ishihara,4 and claim 19 as 1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed September 28, 2011, Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed December 16, 2014, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed April 16, 2015, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed June 15, 2015. 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications, now Sony Mobile Communications, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. 3 US 2009/0174611 Al, published July 9, 2009. 4 US 7,538,732 B2, issued May 26, 2009. Appeal 2015-006367 Application 13/247,358 unpatentable over Schlub in view of Ishihara and Martiskainen.5 We have jurisdiction over the appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a multi-band wireless communications terminal including a dielectric block, and first and second antennas separated by a parasitic element, wherein the dielectric block has a first side substantially parallel to a primary surface of the backplate and a second side includes an outer edge of the block, and wherein the first antenna, second antenna, and parasitic element are on the first and second sides. Claim 18, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 18. A multi-band antenna system comprising: a backplate comprising first and second end portions; first and second antennas spaced apart from each other along the first end portion of the backplate; a parasitic element between the first and second antennas along the first end portion of the backplate; and a dielectric block along the first end portion of the backplate, wherein the first and second antennas and the parasitic element are on the dielectric block, wherein the parasitic element and each of the first and second antennas are on first and second sides of the dielectric block, wherein the first side of the dielectric block is substantially parallel with a primary surface of the backplate, and wherein the second side of the dielectric block comprises an outer edge of the dielectric block. 5 US 7,825,863 B2, issued November 2, 2010. 2 Appeal 2015-006367 Application 13/247,358 ANALYSIS After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellants’ claims and Specification disclosures, we determine that the Appellants’ arguments are insufficient to identity reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejections for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Office Action. We offer the following for emphasis. Appellants do not argue the claims separately, but instead focus on the limitations of claim 18. See Appeal Br. 3—6. We, therefore, confine our remarks to claim 18. Claims 19 and 20 stand or fall with claim 18, from which they depend. The Examiner finds Schlub teaches a multi-band antenna system including a backplate 12 having first and second end portions 18, 21, first and second antennas 56, 64 spaced apart from each other along a first end portion of the backplate, a parasitic element 58 between the antennas along the first end portion of the backplate, and a dielectric block 96 having a first side substantially parallel with a primary surface of the backplate and a second side comprising an outer edge of the block, wherein the antennas and the parasitic element are on the dielectric block. Ans. 2—3. The Examiner acknowledges Schlub fails to teach that the dielectric block is along the first end portion of the backplate or that each of the first and second antennas are on the first and second sides of the dielectric block. Id. at 3. The Examiner turns to Ishihara for teaching an antenna with a driven radiator 7 and a parasitic element on first and second sides of a parallelepiped dielectric 3 Appeal 2015-006367 Application 13/247,358 member 6. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to locate Schlub’s antennas and parasitic element on multiple faces of a dielectric block thereby providing “a miniaturized antenna which can have separate control of fundamental resonant frequency and higher-order mode resonant frequency.” Id. at 3^4. Appellants raise three arguments against the Examiner’s rejection. First, Appellants argue that Ishihara fails to teach two antennas and, therefore, would not disclose or suggest that each of two antennas are on first and second sides of the dielectric block. Appeal Br. 4—5. Appellants additionally argue that Schlub’s Figure 6 is the only figure illustrating the dielectric support structure 96, and the single resonating element 76 is only a single side of this structure. Reply Br. 5. Second, Appellants contend that it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of Schlub and Ishihara because these references have different purposes. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 5. Appellants assert that Schlub discusses choking/blocking frequencies, whereas Ishihara discusses expanding frequency bands/bandwidths. Appeal Br. 5. Thus, according to Appellants, it would not have been obvious to modify Schlub with Ishihara in an attempt to control resonant frequencies. Id. Third, Appellants argue that because Ishihara is not directed toward isolating antenna elements, it would not have been obvious to combine Ishihara with Schlub. Id.', Reply Br. 6. Appellants urge that Schlub provides its antenna isolation elements 58, 62 to enhance radio-frequency (RF) isolation between antennas 56, 60, 64, whereas nowhere does Ishihara teach RF isolation between antennas. Appeal Br. 5— 6. As such, Appellants argue the combination of Schlub and Ishihara as 4 Appeal 2015-006367 Application 13/247,358 proposed by the Examiner is the result of impermissible hindsight reasoning. Id. at 6. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Appellants’ first argument, that Ishihara would not disclose or suggest each of two antennas on first and second sides of the dielectric block because Ishihara fails to teach multiple antennas, fails to address the basis of the rejection. The Examiner did not rely on Ishihara for the teaching of a pair of antennas, but for the suggestion for placement of an antenna on first and second sides of a dielectric block. There is no dispute that Schlub teaches multiple antennas or a dielectric block on which an antenna is placed. These facts provide sufficient rational underpinning for the conclusion that it would have been obvious to place Schlub’s multiple antennas on the dielectric block on first and second sides thereof as Ishihara suggests. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.) Appellants’ second argument, that it would not have been obvious to modify Schlub in view of Ishihara because these references have different purposes, is not persuasive because Appellants have not shown that these purposes are germane to the placement of the antennas and parasitic element on first and second sides of the dielectric block. The Examiner finds, without dispute, that placing Schlub’s dual band antenna elements 78, 80 on two sides of the dielectric block would allow the resonance frequency of each element to be separately controlled, because Ishihara teaches providing the antenna on two sides allows for a much longer resonating arm. Ans. 6— 7; see also, Schlub 173 (“antenna resonating element 76 has multiple branches formed by first arm 78 and second arm 80. These branches each 5 Appeal 2015-006367 Application 13/247,358 form a resonant structure with a different effective length.”). In other words, utilizing more than one surface of the dielectric block allows for longer antenna structures which, in turn, allows for greater resonating frequency control. We also note that Ishihara’s production of multiple-resonance states is with regard to electromagnetic coupling between the antenna and the parasitic element and not between either multiple antennas or between multiple branches or arms of the antenna. Ishihara 8:26—29. Schlub’s reference to RF choking is with regard to preventing electromagnetic coupling between the multiple antennas, not between the antennas and the parasitic elements. Schlub 1 66. Therefore, Appellants have not established that Schlub and Ishihara have different purposes for the antenna and parasitic element, much less for the antenna and the dielectric block. Appellants’ third argument, that the combination of Schlub and Ishihara requires impermissible hindsight reasoning because Ishihara is not directed toward isolating antenna elements, is also not persuasive of reversible error. “Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). Appellants’ only basis that the rejection employs impermissible hindsight is that Ishihara is not directed toward isolating antenna elements. However, this fact does not demonstrate that the Examiner’s proposed combination employs knowledge gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure. As the Examiner found, without dispute, Schlub already teaches all the features of 6 Appeal 2015-006367 Application 13/247,358 the system of claim 18 except for the placement of the antennas and parasitic element on multiple sides of the dielectric block. Ans. 2—3. Appellants have not shown the relevance of Ishihara’s lack of teaching of multiple antennas or the additional function of an interposed parasitic element of isolating the antennas from each other. The Examiner merely relies on Ishihara as a teaching of “the well-known technique” of providing an antenna and parasitic element on at least two sides of a dielectric block. Id. at 7. It follows that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusion that claim 18 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schlub in view of Ishihara, alone or further in view of Martiskainen, is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation