Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2018

13191857 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

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.
13/191,857 07/27/2011 YanzhuZhao P0036139.USU2/LG10126.L33 4898
27581 7590 01/29/2018
Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM)
710 MEDTRONIC PARKWAY NE
MS: LC340 Legal Patents
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432-9924
EXAMINER
BUGG, GEORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 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):
medtronic_crdm_docketing @ c ardinal-ip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANZHU ZHAO, GREGORY J. HAUBRICH,
and QUENTIN S. DENZENE
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20, 23—26, and 28—37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Medtronic, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, a
subsidiary of Medtronic pic, of Dublin, Ireland, as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
Introduction
Appellants state their “disclosure relates generally to wireless
communications between medical devices such as implantable medical
devices (IMDs) and, in particular, to multi-element antennas for wireless
communications of the devices.” Spec. 1:10—12. In discussing the
background to the invention, Appellants identity that, due to the various
conditions in which IMDs must operate, “the need remains for a tunable
antenna for optimizing communications of the medical devices in a variety
of operating environments.” Spec. 2:12—14. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claims on appeal:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a telemetry module; and
an antenna coupled to the telemetry module, the antenna
comprising:
a first antenna element that is selectively
electrically-coupled to the telemetry module via a feed
point;
a second antenna element that is magnetically
coupled to the first antenna element; and
a tuning network that is selectively tuned in
response to an operating environment of the apparatus,
wherein the tuning network is electrically coupled to the
second antenna element that is magnetically coupled to
the first antenna element.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App’x).
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 9-12, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29—32 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eaton (US 2004/0215215 Al,
pub. Oct. 28, 2004), Rofougaran (US 2008/0204338 Al, pub. Aug. 28,
2
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
2008), Rek (US 6,597,926 Bl, iss. July 22, 2003), and Nagata (US
2007/0229278 Al, pub. Oct. 4, 2007). Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 3—7 and 28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Eaton, Rofougaran, Rek, Nagata, and Larson (US
2008/0288028 Al, pub. Nov. 20, 2008). Final Act. 8-10.
Claim 8 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eaton, Rofougaran, Rek, Nagata, and Mather (US
6,418,004 Bl, iss. July 9, 2002). Final Act. 11.
Claims 13—20 and 33—36 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Eaton, Rofougaran, Rek, Nagata, Noel (US
2011/0111706 Al, pub. May 12, 2011), and Berland (US 2009/0149825 Al,
pub June 11, 2009). Final Act. 11—16.
Claim 24 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eaton, Rofougaran, Rek, Nagata, and Henry Ott
Consultants, Frequency — Wavelength Chart, (© 2000 Henry W. Ott),
www.hottconsultants.com/techtips/freq-wavelength.html (last accessed
January 3, 2018) (“Ott”). Final Act. 17.
Claim 37 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eaton, Rofougaran, Rek, Nagata, and Kaemmerer (US
2010/0114206 Al, pub. May 6, 2010). Final Act. 17-18.
ISSUES
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
3
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
In view of Appellants’ arguments, the issues are whether the
Examiner errs in the rejections of:
a) claim l2 (App. Br. 6—11; Reply Br. 2—7);
b) claim 2 (App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 7—8);
c) claim 8 (App. Br. 17—20; Reply Br. 13—14);
d) claim ll3 (App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 8—9);
e) claim 154 (App. Br. 21—23; Reply Br. 16—17);
f) claim 24 (App. Br. 27—28; Reply Br. 19-21); and
g) claim 37 (App. Br. 28—29; Reply Br. 21—22).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions.
Instead, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the
Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the
Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 1 by
failing to address the limitation of “the tuning network is electrically coupled
to the second antenna element that is magnetically coupled to the first
antenna element,” as recited in claim 1, and in particular by failing to
address this limitation “in combination with the feature of the ‘first antenna
2 Appellants present no arguments for claims 3—7, 13, 14, 26, 28—30, 32, and
36 substantively separate from those presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 11,
13-17,21,25-26.
3 Appellants argue error in the rejection of claim 31 for the same reason as
claim 11. See App. Br. 15—16.
4 Appellants argue claims 15—20 together as a group based on claim 15 and
present no arguments for claims 33—35 substantively separate from those
presented for claim 15. See App. Br. 21—24
4
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
element [being selectively electrically coupled] to the telemetry module’”
(collectively, the “disputed requirements”). App. Br. 6.
The Examiner responds by finding (a) Eaton teaches an antenna
element electrically coupled to a tuning network, (b) Rofougaran teaches
(i) an antenna with a first antenna element coupled to a second antenna
element and (ii) the selective electrical coupling of antenna elements to a
telemetry circuit (module), and (c) Nagata teaches magnetic coupling of the
first and second antenna elements. Ans. 2 (citing Eaton, Fig. 3; Rofougaran,
Fig. 2,1118, 39); see also Nagata H 20, 110 (cited in rejection of claim 1 at
Final Act. 4—5).5 The Examiner reiterates the motivation to combine the
references from the Final Office Action, and concludes the combined
teachings of Eaton, Rofougaran, and Nagata render claim 1 obvious. Ans. 2.
We agree with the Examiner. Eaton teaches an antenna 110 coupled
to a transmitter/receiver 108 (“telemetry module”) along with a tuning
microprocessor 104 and matching circuit 116 that selectively adjust the
impedance of the antenna (“tuning network that is selectively tuned”) in
response to environmental effects around a human body.6 See Eaton, Fig. 3,
1114—19, 23. Rofougaran teaches using an array of switched antenna
elements from which, depending on the antenna techniques utilized,
individual antenna elements may be selectively coupled to the transceiver
5 The rejection also cites Rek for teaching the limitation of first and second
antenna elements being “magnetically coupled.” Final Act. 4.
6 We note that although Appellants state their “disclosure relates generally to
wireless communications between medical devices” (Spec. 1:10-11), claim
1 is not limited to medical devices. Also, the recited “operating environment
of the apparatus” of claim 1 is not limited to a body-related operating
environment. See, e.g., Spec. 14:15—30 (discussing that an operating
environment can be “air” (with no contributory effects from a body)).
5
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
circuitry as well as selectively coupled to each other. See Rofougaran,
Figs. 1 A—B, || 18, 39. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to the skilled artisan to combine Rofougaran’s switched antenna
array with Eaton’s device “in order to operate in different frequency bands.”
Final Act. 4 (citing Rofougaran, Abstract).
Rek and Nagata each separately teaches first and second magnetically
coupled antenna elements. See Rek, Figs. 1—4, 2:38—39; Nagata || 30, 110.
An ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the basic engineering
principles related to the consideration and use of magnetically coupled
antenna elements such as those in Rek and Nagata, and their utility to the
antenna functions of Eaton and Rofougaran. We specifically agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan “to provide
the modified Eaton’s antenna configuration with the concepts of having
second antenna element is magnetically coupled to a first antenna element as
taught by Nagata ... in order to adjusts the distance of communication.”
Final Act. 5.
Appellants contend in reply that the disclosure of Rofougaran relied
upon by the Examiner fails to teach “that the tuning circuit is electrically
coupled to an antenna element of a multi-element antenna” and that,
regardless, “Rofougaran nonetheless fails to disclose or suggest that the
tuning circuit is electrically coupled to a second antenna element that is
magnetically coupled to a first antenna element.” Reply Br. 4.
These arguments are unpersuasive. Appellants’ arguments do not
address the Examiner’s reliance on Eaton for teaching the tuning network
coupled to the antenna elements and on Nagata or Rek for teaching the
magnetic coupling of the antenna elements. See Final Act. 4. Each
6
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
We also find unpersuasive Appellants’ arguments such as that using
Rofougaran’s antenna array with Eaton’s apparatus “would defeat the
purpose of Rofougaran’s antenna array” (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5) and that
“[rjemoving the second antenna, according to the teachings of Nagata,
would be directly contrary to Rofougaran’s stated purpose of enabling
operation in different frequency bands” (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5). “The test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; see also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA
1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.”).
Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner’s combination of
teachings would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior
art.” Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19
(2007)). The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the ordinarily
skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle” because that artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are persuaded
7
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
that the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1
and, for the same reasons, the rejection of claims 3—7, 13, 14, 26, 28—30, 32,
and 36.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “a third antenna element
that is selectively electrically-coupled to the telemetry module via the feed
point, wherein one of the first antenna element and the third antenna element
is coupled to the telemetry module via the feed point in response to the
operating environment of the apparatus.” App. Br. 30 (Claims App’x). The
Examiner finds Rofougaran’s antenna array teaches the recited third antenna
element and relies on the findings from the rejection of claim 1 for the “in
response to the operating environment” limitation. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because the finding for claim 1
that Eaton teaches selective tuning in response to an operating environment
does not address claim 2’s requirement that an antenna element is coupled to
the telemetry module in response to the operating environment. App. Br. 12.
Appellants further state that,
“[T]he cited embodiment of Eaton describes adjusting the
impedance of an antenna in accordance with a body
conductivity parameter, not coupling “one of the first antenna
element and the third antenna element [] to the telemetry
module via the feed point in response to the operating
environment of the apparatus,” as recited in claim 2.
Id.
8
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
The Examiner responds by finding that Rofougaran teaches claim 2’s
“in response to the operating environment” limitation. Ans. 2 (citing
Rofougaran 118). Appellants argue this finding is erroneous. Reply Br. 7.
We disagree with Appellants.
As mentioned in footnote 6 supra, there is no limitation in claim 1 for
“operating environment” that is body- or medical device-related. The same
holds true for claim 2. Thus, ordinarily skilled artisans would have
understood that Rofougaran’s switching of antenna elements “depending on
the frequency requirements of the system” (| 18) teaches selectively
coupling the antenna elements in response to an operating environment, as
required in claim 2.7
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 2.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the tuning
network comprises a passive network having a tuning element that passively
adjusts an electrical characteristic in response to a change in the operating
environment of the apparatus.” App. Br. 31 (Claims App’x). The Examiner
relies on the rejection of claim 1 for teaching “adjusting] an electrical
characteristic in response to a change in the operating environment,” as
recited, and finds that Mather teaches the recited “passive network.” Final
Act. 11 (citing, inter alia, Mather 1:52—63). The Examiner further finds it
would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the combination of
Eaton, Rofougaran, Rek, and Nagata as proposed for claim 1 “with the
7 The difference between the Examiner’s findings for claims 1 and 2 for how
the prior art teaches “in response to an operating environment” demonstrates
there are cumulative relevant teachings for this limitation.
9
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
concepts of the passive sensor as taught by Mather, in order to save energy
and make the equipment last longer.” Id.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “adding the passive
sensor of Mather to the apparatus of Eaton in view of Rofougaran, Rek, and
Nagata would not result in [the limitation of claim 8]” and because Mather is
nonalagous art. App. Br. 19.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. Insofar as it relates to the
Examiner’s reliance on Mather, claim 8 essentially requires that the tuning
network includes a sub-network that includes a passive element, such as a
resistor, inductor, or capacitor. Mather’s passive sensor embodies the
extraordinarily well-known use of a passive element in a tuning network,
and we agree with the Examiner that the use of such passive elements in the
tuning network of Eaton would have been obvious. Final Act. 11; Ans. 18—
19. Appellants proffer no evidence otherwise.
Regarding the nonanalogous art argument, we find unpersuasive
Appellants’ contention that “Mather is nonanalogous art because it is from a
different field of endeavor (i.e., not implantable medical devices), and
Mather is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Appellants (i.e.,
communicating medical information from inside the body).” As discussed
above, while certainly Appellants’ Specification relates to medical devices
and communicating medical information from inside the body, claims 1 and
8 are not so limited. Also, the Federal Circuit instructs, “[t]he Supreme
Court’s decision in KSR . . . directs us to construe the scope of analogous art
broadly, stating that ‘familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes.'''’'’ Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (quoting with emphasis, KSR, 550 U.S. at 402). For example,
10
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
when a problem is not unique to the claimed subject matter, a skilled artisan
addressing a problem with portable computers may look to areas such as “a
desktop telephone directory, a piano lid, a kitchen cabinet, a washing
machine cabinet, a wooden furniture cabinet, or a two-part housing for
storing audio cassettes.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481—82 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (affirming rejection of a laptop computer hinge as obvious over
hinged cabinets, piano lids, etc., because the “problem is not unique to
portable computers”). Mather’s teaching of the use of passive components
in a tuning circuit (1:52—63) were reasonably pertinent to the tuning network
issues facing Appellants. For example, Applicants’ invention addresses
concerns with the reliability and efficiency of wireless communication
systems, especially in situations in which the device is worn on the body.
Spec. 2:6-10. Relatedly, Mather is concerned with providing a sensor in a
wireless communication system that can also be worn by a user, and which
can efficiently and reliably be detected. Mather, 1:45-63, 4:28-32.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 8.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 9 (which depends from claim 1 and
recites requirements for a sensor)8 and recites “wherein the sensor comprises
one or more electrodes.” App. Br. 31 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds
8 In full, claim 9 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a
sensor to determine whether the apparatus is on the patient, wherein the
tuning network is selectively tuned based on the output of the sensor.” App.
Br. 31 (Claims App’x). We note claim 9 recites, without antecedent basis,
“the patient,” which raises a concern of indefmiteness under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In the event of further prosecution, the
Examiner and Appellants should address this issue. We decline to import a
limitation into claim 1 based on the limitations of claim 9.
11
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
Eaton’s disclosure of a sensor “for measuring heart rate as well as other
known medical related parameters” (120) teaches the added limitation of
claim 11, because skilled artisans would have understood Eaton to teach an
ECG sensor, which is known to include electrodes. Ans. 3^4. Appellants
argue the Examiner errs because Eaton fails even to suggest an electrode,
and the Examiner has failed to show why a skilled artisan would “measure
heart rate with electrodes, rather than measuring heart rate without
electrodes by using another method.” Reply Br. 8.
Appellants do not persuade us of Examiner error. The obviousness
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, as the analysis can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “Among the inventions that the law
deems obvious are those modest, routine, everyday, incremental
improvements of an existing product or process that... do not involve
sufficient inventiveness to merit patent protection.” See Ritchie v. Vast
Resources, Inc., 563 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, we agree with
the Examiner that ordinarily skilled artisans would have understood Eaton’s
teaching of a heart rate sensor at least suggests a conventional ECG sensor
having electrodes and, thus, renders obvious the use of a sensor comprising
an electrode, as required by claim 11.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 11 and, for
the same reason, the rejection of claim 31.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites:
12
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a tuning
module that generates tuning signals to apply to the tuning
network, wherein the tuning module selectively applies the
tuning signals to adjust an electrical characteristic of the tuning
network to a first value in response to the apparatus being
disposed in a first operating environment and to adjust the
electrical characteristic of the tuning network to a second value
in response to the apparatus being disposed in a second
operating environment, wherein the first value is different than
the second value.
App. Br. 32 (Claims App’x).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding that Noel teaches the
added requirement of claim 15 because Noel teaches only a single tuning
control signal, whereas claim 15 recites plural tuning signals, and also
because Noel does not disclose two operating environments. App. Br. 22—
23. As the Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Noel’s disclosure of
tuning an antenna based on two different received signal strength indicators
teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Noel discloses changing the value of a tuning signal so that it
corresponds with two different received signal strength indicators. Noel
122. A broad but reasonable interpretation of “tuning signals,” as recited in
claim 15, and in view of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses two
sequential values of a tuning signal as taught by Noel. Also, in view of the
plain meaning of “operating environment,” as discussed above, we
specifically agree with the Examiner that Noel’s first and second strength
indicators teach the first and second operating environments recited in claim
15. See Ans. 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 15
and, for the same reasons, the rejection of claims 16—20 and 33—35.
13
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein one of the first and
second antenna elements is less than or equal to one twentieth
(1/20) of a wavelength in length and the other of the first and
second antenna elements is less than or equal to approximately
one one-hundredth (1/100) of a wavelength at 400 MHz in
length.
App. Br. 34 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner finds the limitations of claim 24 are constitute an
obvious design choice, as evidenced by the Frequency — Wavelength Chart
of Ott, which for a 400 MHz frequency discloses antenna element lengths of
3.75 cm for 1/20 of a wavelength and 7.5 mm for 1/100 of a wavelength.
Final Act. 17. Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “Ott fails to
disclose or suggest any reason to design antenna elements with lengths less
than or equal to the five-percent wavelength and the one-percent wavelength
at 400 MHz, as opposed to any other frequency or length of the 115 table
entries.” App. Br. 27—28.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner relies on Otts’s
express disclosure of four alternatives of antenna lengths for a given
frequency. We agree with the Examiner that the reason for selecting any
particular configuration as provided in Ott is dictated by engineering
requirements. Ans. 11. We find it reasonable for an ordinarily skilled
artisan to apply the knowledge Ott describes in order to resolve a design
need of selecting a suitable length of an antenna according to particular
wavelengths of a desired frequency. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“When there
is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
14
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has
good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.”)
Appellants provide no evidence or explanation for why the
Examiner’s proposed combination of teachings was “uniquely challenging
or difficult” or otherwise constitutes “an unobvious step over the prior art.”
Leapfrog v. Fisher-Price, 485 F.3d at 1162. In view of the Examiner’s
findings, given no argument of secondary considerations which can be a
check on hindsight, Cheese Sys. v. Tetra Pak Cheese, 725 F.3d at 1352, we
are persuaded the subject matter of claim 15 is an example of an obvious use
of familiar elements to obtain predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 24.
Claim 3 7
Claim 37 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus
comprises a watch.” App. Br. 37 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds, in
view of the rejection of claim 1, that Kaemmerer’s disclosure of “patient
interface device 40 [that] may comprise a wearable watch that
communicates wirelessly with IMD 10 implanted within patient 12”
(Kaemmerer 117) teaches the requirements of claim 37. Final Act. 17. We
agree. Appellants’ argument that the Examiner errs because Kaemmerer
“fails to describe . . . antenna elements in a multi-element antenna” is
unpersuasive. App. Br. 29. The Examiner does not rely on Kaemmerer for
the requirements related to a multi-element antenna, which are recited in
claim 1, not claim 37.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 37.
15
Appeal 2017-006055
Application 13/191,857
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-20, 23-26, and 28-37
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
16