R.A. Miller Industries, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 14, 2021

2020003155 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2021)

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.
15/680,399 08/18/2017 Roger Cox 71368-0330 1160
20915 7590 04/14/2021
MCGARRY BAIR PC
7412 Panners Lane NE
Rockford, MI 49341
EXAMINER
IMMANUEL, BAMIDELE ADEFOLARIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2021 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):
patents@mcgarrybair.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
Ex parte ROGER COX
and MATTHEW STEVEN TUIN
_______________
Appeal 2020-003155
Application 15/680,399
Technology Center 2800
_______________
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–20 of Application
15/680,399. Final Act. (April 3, 2019). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies R.A. Miller Industries, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003155
Application 15/680,399

2
I. BACKGROUND
The ’399 Application describes a dual function antenna. As the
Specification explains, mobile vehicles such as aircraft often use both a GPS
and a transponder. Spec. ¶ 2. The transponder transmits and receives various
information about the vehicle at a frequency that is near or overlaps the
frequency of the GPS. Id. To prevent interference between the GPS and the
transponder, the systems are often physically separated. Id. The
Specification describes an apparatus that allows co-location of the antennas
for both systems. Id. ¶¶ 3–5.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’399 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below.
1. An antenna assembly for an aircraft comprising:
a housing defining an interior and including a bottom
forming a ground plane;
a WAAS GPS antenna mounted within the interior and
operating at a first frequency;
an L-band monopole antenna mounted within the interior
and extending from the ground plane; and
a trap including an inductor and a capacitor, coupled to the
L-band monopole antenna and tuned to the first frequency of the
WAAS GPS antenna;
wherein the trap operates to prevent the L-band monopole
antenna from affecting gain and radiation patterns of the WAAS
GPS antenna at the first frequency.
Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief (“Claims
Appendix”) 2 (filed August 29, 2019).
Appeal 2020-003155
Application 15/680,399

3
II. REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4, 6–13, and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Stierhoff,2 Phillips,3 and
Noro.4, 5 Final Act. 4.
2. Claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Stierhoff, Phillips, Noro, and
Kalafus.6 Final Act. 9.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Rejection of claims 1, 4, 6–13, and 16–18 as unpatentable over the
combination of Stierhoff, Phillips, and Noro
Appellant argues for reversal of this rejection on the basis of
limitations of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6–9. Independent claims
13 and 18 are alleged to be patentable for the same reasons that claim 1 is
said to be patentable. Id. at 8. Although not expressly stated, we assume that
Appellant intended to argue that the dependent claims are patentable by

2 US 7,786,937 B1, issued August 31, 2010.
3 US 4,730,195, issued March 8, 1988.
4 US 2007/0171138 A1, published July 26, 2007.
5 Both the Summary of the Final Action and the Examiner’s statement of this
rejection includes claim 5. Claim 5 was canceled prior to entry of the final
rejection. Amendment and Response to Office Action 2 (March 13, 2019).
The Examiner's summary statement of the rejection also omits claim 6,
which is included in the substantive explanation of the rejection. See Final
Act. 5. We assume these were clerical errors.
6 US 5,877,725, issued March 2, 1999.
Appeal 2020-003155
Application 15/680,399

4
virtue of depending from an allowable parent claim. Thus, we limit our
discussion to claim 1.
The Examiner rejected claim 1 as obvious over the combination of
Stierhoff, Phillips, and Noro. Final Act. 4–5. In doing so, the Examiner
found that Stierhoff describes or suggests each limitation of claim 1 except
for the recited trap coupled to the monopole antenna and tuned to the first
frequency of the GPS antenna. Id. at 4. The Examiner further found that
Phillips describes a trap coupled to a monopole antenna. Id. (citing Figure
15). The Examiner also found that Noro describes reducing interference
between a first and a second antenna using a trap circuit by tuning the trap
circuit’s resin and frequency to match that of the antenna to which it is not
coupled. Id. (citing Noro ¶¶ 39, 65). Based on these factual findings, the
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Phillips’s trap
with Stierhoff’s antenna pair to facilitate superior radiation and decoupling
properties and improved impedance matching. Id. The Examiner also
determined that it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to apply Noro’s teachings to the modified
antenna pair to achieve a predictable result—reduced interference between
the antennas in the pair. Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed for
any of four reasons: (1) the Examiner erred in determining the scope and
content of the prior art, (2) the Examiner did not provide an adequate
explanation as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would
combine Phillips and Stierhoff in the manner proposed in the rejection,
Appeal 2020-003155
Application 15/680,399

5
(3) the Examiner did not properly apply the Noro’s teachings, or (4) Phillips
teaches away from the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 6–9.
First, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by finding that
Phillips discloses a trap coupled to a monopole antenna. Id. at 6 (citing Final
Act. 4).
On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of demonstrating not just error,
but reversible error, in the rejection. For this argument, Appellant has not
demonstrated that the Examiner’s error is of a magnitude that compels
reversal.
We begin by agreeing with Appellant that the finding on page 4 of the
Final Action is incorrect. As Appellant explains, Phillips describes attaching
a trap to a dipole antenna. Id. (citing Phillips 2:18–20, 33–35).
This error, however, is not sufficiently serious to mandate reversal of
the rejection. Elsewhere in the Final Action, the Examiner correctly states
that Phillips’s antenna has a sleeve dipole configuration. Final Act. 2.
Moreover, the Examiner does not rely upon Phillips to describe a monopole
antenna. As the Final Action makes clear, the Examiner finds that Stierhoff
discloses the L-band monopole antenna. Id. at 4; Answer 3–4.
Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not adequately
explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated “to connect the parallel resonant tank including a capacitor 1002
and an inductor 1004 to a monopole antenna as taught by Stierhoff from the
disclosure of a dipole antenna in Phillips.” Appeal Br. 6.
As discussed above, the Examiner found that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was filed to recognize the implementation
of a trap as taught by Philips [sic] et al. with inductive loading
Appeal 2020-003155
Application 15/680,399

6
facilitate superior radiation and decoupling properties (Col. 6,
Lines 61-68) and incorporated into the device of Stierhoff et al.
for the benefit achieving the aforementioned advantages and
improved impedance matching to obtain maximum power
transfer (Col. 9, Lines 13-27).
Final Act. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided a
sufficient explanation with a rational underpinning for a person having
ordinary skill in the art to have combined Stierhoff and Phillips in the
manner proposed in the rejection.
Although Phillips makes a passing reference to monopole antennas in
the background, the bulk of Phillips’s disclosure is a discussion of the
structure and theory underlying the operation of its dual band dipole
antenna. Indeed, the particular passages cited by the Examiner are discussing
the benefits of the particular sleeve to dipole design that is the focus of
Phillips’s disclosure. See Phillips 6:46–68; 8:23–9:32. The Examiner has not
provided reasoning sufficient to bridge the gap between monopole and
dipole antennas and explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have incorporated a resonant trap used to create Phillips’s dual band
antenna and applied it to the monopole antenna described in Stierhoff.
The Examiner’s failure to provide an adequate reason to combine
Stierhoff and Phillips constitutes reversible error.
Third, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by finding that Noro
describes the reduction of interference between a first antenna and a second
antenna using a filter circuit as well known. Appeal Br. 7. According to
Appellant, Noro actually describes the use of physical conductive walls, not
a trap circuit, to isolate components of Noro’s first antenna and second
antenna from each other.
Appeal 2020-003155
Application 15/680,399

7
In response, the Examiner attempts to minimize the importance of
Noro to the rejection. The Examiner claims that “Noro is only applied to
show that it is further possible to reduce interference between a first and the
second antenna elements using filtering circuits and not only a shielding
surface (Para. 0065, last sentence).” Answer 5.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in determining
Noro’s content. The relied-upon portions of Noro do not describe the use of
filtering or trap circuits to reduce interference between elements of the two
different antennas.
Unlike the erroneous factual determination discussed above, this
mistake does constitute reversible error. Absent this unsupported factual
finding, there is no evidence that the prior art recognized that a trap circuit
could perform the recited function of preventing the L-band monopole
antenna from affecting gain and radiation patterns of the GPS antenna. Thus,
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Fourth, Appellant argues that Phillips teaches away from the
Examiner’s proposed combination and the subject matter of claim 1. Appeal
Br. 8–9. In particular, Appellant argues that Phillips “recognizes that the
detuning and absorptive effects of the user’s body have indicated that
monopole antennas are not particularly suited for portable applications.” Id.
at 8 (citing Phillips 1:25–28).
We do not find this argument persuasive.
The subject matter of claim 1 is “[a]n antenna assembly for an
aircraft.” Claims Appendix 2; see also Spec. ¶¶ 2–5 (indicating the subject
matter as antennas for use on mobile vehicles, particularly aircraft). Phillips
describes monopole antennas as particularly well-suited for use in vehicles.
Appeal 2020-003155
Application 15/680,399

8
Phillips 1:18–21 (“The necessity of a conducting surface makes monopole
antennas an attractive choice for mobile applications where the metallic
body of a vehicle serves particularly well as a ground plane conducting
surface.”).
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of claims 4, 6–13, and 16–18.
B. Rejection of claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over the
combination of Stierhoff, Phillips, Noro, and Kalafus
Appellant’s arguments for reversal of this rejection are the same as
those advanced in support of reversal of the rejection of the independent
claims. See Appeal Br. 9. Appellant adds that Kalafus does not cure the
defects alleged to exist in the rejection of the independent claims over the
combination of Steinhoff, Phillips, and Noro. Id.
Because we have reversed the rejection of the independent claims, we
also reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 19, and 20.
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6–13, 16–18 103 Stierhoff, Phillips, Noro 1, 4, 6–13, 16–18
2, 3, 14, 15, 19, 20 103 Stierhoff, Phillips, Noro, Kalafus 2, 3, 14, 15, 19, 20
Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–20
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
REVERSED