Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 18, 2020

2020006645 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2020)

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.
15/424,605 02/03/2017 Qingxiang Li P9940USC2 3252
65015 7590 12/18/2020
Treyz Law Group
6501 E. Greenway Pkwy
#103-621
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
EXAMINER
MAGALLANES, RICARDO I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2020 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@treyzlawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte QINGXIANG LI, ROBERT W. SCHLUB,
FLETCHER R. ROTHKOPF, ADAM D. MITTLEMAN, YI JIANG,
EMILY McMILIN, and LI-JUN ZHANG
___________

Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 1.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Apple, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
June 5, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 23, 2020); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 13, 2020) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 24, 2020); and the Specification
(“Spec.,” filed February 3, 2017). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s
findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these
documents.
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed devices “relate[] generally to wireless communications,
and, more particularly, to wireless electronic devices and antenna structures
for wireless electronic devices.” Spec., 1:13–15.
As noted above, claims 1–20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are
independent. Appeal Br. 15 (claim 1), 16–17 (claim 8), 18–19 (claim 15)
(Claims App.). Claims 2–7 depend directly from claim 1, claims 9–14
depend directly or indirectly from claim 8, and claims 16–20 depend directly
or indirectly from claim 15. Id. at 15–20.
Claims 1, 8, and 15, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, are illustrative.
1. An electronic device having opposing front and rear
surfaces, comprising:
a housing comprising conductive sidewalls and a
dielectric member that forms the rear surface of the electronic
device;
a display mounted in the housing at the front surface; and
an antenna having an antenna ground, an antenna
resonating element formed on the dielectric member, a first
antenna feed terminal coupled to the antenna resonating element,
and a second antenna feed terminal coupled to the antenna
ground, wherein the antenna resonating element is attached to
the dielectric member with an adhesive.
Id. at 15 (emphases added).
8. An electronic device, comprising:
a display including a display cover layer that forms a front
surface of the electronic device;
a dielectric member opposite the display cover layer that
forms a rear surface of the electronic device opposite the front
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

3

surface, wherein the dielectric member is formed from a material
selected from the group consisting of: glass and ceramic;
conductive sidewalls that extend between the front and
rear surfaces;
conductive traces mounted on the dielectric member that
receive wireless signals through the dielectric member; and
first and second feed terminals coupled to the conductive
traces.
Id. at 16–17 (emphases added).
15. An electronic device, comprising:
a display including a display cover layer that forms a front
surface of the electronic device;
dielectric structures opposite the display cover layer that
form an entirety of a rear surface of the electronic device
opposite the front surface; and
an antenna comprising an antenna ground, an antenna
resonating element that includes conductive traces formed
directly on the dielectric structures, a first antenna feed terminal
coupled to the antenna resonating element, and a second antenna
feed terminal coupled to the antenna ground.
Id. at 18–19 (emphases added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference Issued/Publ’d Filed
Sonoda US 5,768,217 June 16, 1998 May 12, 1997
Hill US 2008/0165065 A1 July 10, 2008 Jan. 4, 2007
Zhang US 2009/0040115 A1 Feb. 12, 2009 Aug. 7, 2007

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

4

The Examiner rejects claims 1–7 and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combined teachings of Zhang and Hill. Final Act. 2–9.
The Examiner also rejects claims 8–10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combined teachings of Zhang and Sonoda. Id. at 9–13.
Further, the Examiner rejects claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Zhang, Sonoda, and Hill. Id. at 13–
14.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claims 1, 7, 8, and 15; so do we. See Appeal Br. 3–9;
Ans. 3–9; Reply Br. 2–10. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings in the Final Office Action and the Answer as our own and add any
additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
A. Obviousness Over Zhang and Hill
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1–7 and 15–20 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Zhang and Hill. Final Act. 2–9.
Appellant contests the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 15 separately. Appeal
Br. 6–9, 11–13. For the reasons given below, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs, and we sustain this rejection.
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

5

1. Independent Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Zhang teaches or
suggests the majority of the recited limitations. Final Act. 2–3. In
particular, the Examiner finds Zhang discloses an electronic device, such as
device 10 depicted in Zhang’s Figure 1, having opposing front and rear
surfaces. Id. at 2. The Examiner also finds Zhang’s device 10 has
housing 12 including sidewalls 12–1 and dielectric portions 12-2A and
12-2B that form at least a portion of a rear surface of the electronic device.
Id. (citing Zhang, Fig. 4A). Further, the Examiner finds Zhang discloses
antenna 54 has antenna ground plane 54-2 and antenna resonating element
54-1B formed on dielectric member 12-2A and/or 12-2B. Id. (citing Zhang
¶ 91, Fig. 9). In addition, Zhang teaches or suggests the dielectric member
may “form the rear surface of the dielectric device.” Zhang ¶ 39 (“In some
situations, housing 12 or portions of housing 12 may be formed from a
dielectric or other low-conductivity material, so that the operation of
conductive antenna elements that are located in proximity to housing 12 is
not disrupted.”); see Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds “Zhang does not disclose the new added
limitation ‘wherein the antenna resonating element is attached to the
dielectric member with an adhesive.’” Final Act. 3. Nevertheless, the
Examiner finds that Hill discloses, “[r]esonating element 54-1 may be
formed by any suitable antenna fabrication technique such as . . . patterning
metal such as copper that makes up part of a flex circuit substrate that is
attached to support 102 by adhesive, screws, or other suitable fastening
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

6

mechanisms, etc.” Id. at 3 (quoting Hill ¶ 724 (emphasis added)). Hill
further explains, “Support structure 102 may be formed from plastic (e.g.,
ABS plastic) or other suitable dielectric.” Hill ¶ 71 (emphasis added).
Thus, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
would have had reason to combine the teachings of Zhang and Hill to
achieve the devices, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4.
We further note that Zhang discloses antenna resonating element 54-
1B may be attached to dielectric antenna resonating element support
structure 90 by inserting support structure post 110 in antenna resonating
element post hole 116 and resonating antenna element end 76 in support
structure hole 114. Zhang ¶ 101, Fig. 18; see id. ¶ 91 (“Antenna resonating
element 54-1B may be a free-standing structure, a trace that is patterned on
the surface of a substrate such as a flex circuit, or may be attached to other
suitable mounting structures.” (emphasis added)). Thus, we agree that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to
form the claimed invention so that with one suitable
arrangement, the resonating element structures of [Hill’s] FIG.
12 are formed as part of a patterned flex circuit that is attached
to antenna cap support structure 102 (e.g., by adhesive)[,] (Hill
[¶ 72]]) therefore, securing the antenna to the dielectric member
and prevent movement.
Final Act 4.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 for four
reasons. Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 2–7. After considering those reasons,
we are not persuaded the Examiner errs.

4 Although the Examiner cites to “para. 0121” of Hill, we understand the
correct citation to be to Hill ¶ 72. See Appeal Br. 7; Ans. 4.
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

7

First, Appellant contends “neither Zhang nor Hill shows or suggests
an antenna resonating element attached to a dielectric member that forms a
rear surface of an electronic device.” Id. at 6–7. In particular, Appellant
contends Zhang’s Figures 8 and 105 show antenna resonating element 54-1B
is attached to mounting structure 66 and “[m]ounting structure 66 does not
form the rear surface of Zhang’s device, as it is covered by dielectric portion
12-2.” Id. at 7. Further, because Zhang discloses
“the tail of the first antenna’s resonating element may be
mounted in a location in the interior of device 10 so that the tail
is not immediately adjacent to the surface of housing portion 12-
2B” (see [Zhang ¶ 65]). Zhang’s antenna resonating element 54-
1B is therefore not equivalent to the antenna resonating element
mounted on a dielectric member that forms the rear face of an
electronic device, as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 7. We disagree.
Claim 1 recites, “a housing comprising conductive sidewalls and a
dielectric member that forms the rear surface of the electronic device.”
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Specification explains,
“the rear surface of device 10 (i.e., the surface opposing the front side that
contains display 14) may be formed from a planar dielectric structure (e.g., a
glass plate, a ceramic plate, etc.). Antennas may be formed under this type
of rear plate or under other dielectric device structures.” Spec., 11:12–25
(emphasis added); see id. at Fig. 5. Thus, we understand Zhang’s dielectric

5 Although the Examiner relies on Zhang’s Figures 1, 3B, 4A, 5A, 9, and 16,
but not Figure 8 or 10, in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 2; Ans. 4),
Zhang’s Figure 8 also supports the Examiner’s findings regarding Zhang’s
teachings (Ans. 4 (citing Zhang ¶ 86)).
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

8

portions 12-2A and 12-2B define surfaces opposing the front side of the
device that contains a display.
Zhang’s Figure 3B, including our annotations, is reproduced below.

Figure 3B is a cross-sectional side view of an illustrative handheld electronic
device with an antenna structure in accordance with an embodiment
disclosed in Zhang. Zhang ¶ 18. Referring to Zhang’s Figure 1, conductive
portion 12-1, as depicted in Figure 3B, surrounds the edge of display 16.
See id. ¶¶ 15, 41, 42.
The Examiner finds “Zhang clearly discloses in Figure 3B an antenna
resonating element (54-1B) formed to a dielectric member (dielectric
portions 12-2a and 12-2B) that forms the rear surface of an electronic device
(See Figure 5 wherein dielectric member 12-2A and 12-2B forms the rear
surface of device 10).” Ans. 4. Moreover, this finding is consistent with
Zhang’s preference for locating the antenna’s tail away from the housing’s
surface. See id. (citing Zhang ¶ 86, Fig. 8); see also Zhang ¶ 65 (“The
second end of the first antenna’s resonating element, which is sometimes
referred to as its tail, may be positioned in a location that is relatively
insensitive to proximity effects.” (emphasis added)). Thus, we agree with
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

9

the Examiner that Zhang’s dielectric members 12-2A and 12-2B teach or
suggest “a dielectric member that forms the rear surface of the electronic
device,” as recited in claim 1.
Second, Appellant contends Hill does not teach or suggest attaching
antenna resonating elements to a dielectric member by adhesive. Appeal
Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 4. Referring to Figure 3B, reproduced above, Appellant
contends that Zhang’s antenna resonating element 54-1B is formed between
dielectric portion 12-2B and conductive housing portion 12-1. Reply Br. 2–
3 (citing Zhang ¶ 64). Appellant concludes that Figure 3B “merely shows
that antenna resonating element 54-1B is formed within housing 12 and fails
to show or suggest that antenna resonating element 54-1B is attached to
dielectric portion 12-2B, as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added).
Appellant contends that “[a]lthough Hill does disclose that adhesive is used
in attaching the resonating element to the support structure (see [Hill ¶ 72]),
Hill fails to show or suggest that support structure 102 forms a rear face of
an electronic device.” Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant, however, misunderstands
the Examiner’s reliance on Hill.
Hill discloses that antenna resonating element 54-1 may be attached to
dielectric support structure 102 by adhesive, screws, or other suitable
fastening mechanisms. Hill ¶ 72 (emphasis added). As the Examiner
explains:
The Examiner recognized that the Zhang reference
discloses antennas (54-1B) formed in dielectrics and not
attached. Therefore, the Examiner relied on the Hill reference to
specifically address the limitation “wherein the antenna
resonating element is attached to the dielectric member with an
adhesive”. (See [Final Act. 3–4])
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

10

Based on Hill’s teachings on the use of adhesives to attach
antenna elements on the dielectric (support structure 102 in Hill’s
Figure 12 and paragraph 72) one of ordinary skill would have
used the adhesives according to Hill to attach antenna elements
to the dielectric structures 12-2B of Zhang which form part of
the rear surface of the electronic device (as shown in Zhang
Figure 5).
Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner relies on Hill to teach or suggest that a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant art would have known to attach with adhesive
an antenna resonating element to a dielectric member in a handheld
electronic device. Hill ¶ 72, Fig. 12; see Zhang ¶¶ 91, 101, Fig. 18
(discussed above); see also Zhang ¶ 39 (housing 12 or portions thereof may
be formed from dielectric materials). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Hill teaches the missing limitations of Zhang.
Third, Appellant contends Zhang teaches away from attaching
antenna resonating element 54-1B to dielectric portion 12-2A or 12-2B.
Reply Br. 5–6. In particular, Appellant contends,
Zhang teaches that it is “desirable to minimize proximity effects”
([Zhang ¶ 52]). Although the antenna resonating element tail
portion may be the most susceptible to increased proximity
effects, any decrease in the distance between resonating element
54-1B and dielectric portion 12-2B would increase the proximity
effects when a user touches dielectric portion 12-2B. Zhang’s
focus on minimizing proximity effects would lead one of ordinary
skill away from attaching resonating element 54-lB to dielectric
portion 12-2B.
Id. (bolded italics added).
The Examiner finds, however, that Zhang merely teaches a preference
for having at least a portion of the antenna resonating element, the tail of the
antenna resonating element, “mounted in a location in the interior of device
10 so that the tail is not immediately adjacent to the surface of housing
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

11

portion 12-2B.” Ans. 4–5 (quoting Zhang ¶ 65). “A reference may be said
to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 53 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “The fact that
the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however,
should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference
with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained,
should be weighed against one another.” Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v.
Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see DePuy Spine, Inc. v.
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A
reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference
for an alternative invention[.]”). As noted above, we are not persuaded that
locating the tail of an antenna resonating element in the interior of the device
and away from the user’s touch is inconsistent with the Examiner
modifications to the teachings of the applied references. Thus, on this
record, we are not persuaded that Zhang teaches away from the devices
recited in claim 1.
Fourth, Appellant contends the Examiner relies on improper hindsight
to combine the teachings of Zhang and Hill to achieve the devices, as recited
in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 6–7. In particular, Appellant contends,
“[n]either Zhang nor Hill, alone or in combination, shows or suggests
attaching an antenna member to a dielectric member that forms a rear
surface of an electronic device. This positively claimed feature is only
gleaned from applicant's disclosure.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

12

As the Examiner notes,
any judgement on obviousness is in any 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 invention was made, and does not
include knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant’s disclosure,
such a reconstruction is proper.
Ans. 5 (citing In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)). As
discussed above, the Examiner relies on Zhang’s teachings regarding
capping an antenna resonating element with a dielectric portion (e.g., Zhang
¶ 64) and Hill’s teachings regarding attaching an antenna resonating element
to a dielectric support structure with adhesive (e.g., Hill ¶ 72) to find that a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, aware of these teachings, would
have had reason to attach an antenna resonating element with a dielectric
portion with adhesive. Final Act. 4. In light of Zhang’s further teaching that
an antenna resonating element may be attached to a dielectric support
structure, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s combination of the teachings
of Zhang and Hill relies on improper hindsight. See Zhang ¶¶ 91, 101,
Fig. 18.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Zhang and Hill, and we sustain that
rejection. Further, Appellant does not challenge the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 2–6 separately from its challenge to their base claim,
independent claim 1; and, therefore, we also sustain the rejection of those
claims.
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

13

2. Dependent Claim 7
Claim 7 depends directly from independent claim 1 and recites the
electronic device “wherein the dielectric member comprises transparent
dielectric material.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The
Examiner finds Zhang discloses that housing 12, including dielectric portion
12-2A or 12-2B, may be made from glass, which a person of ordinary skill
in the relevant art would have known may be transparent. Final Act. 6;
Ans. 6.
Appellant contends:
Zhang’s cover portion 12-2B, which was suggested to be
equivalent to the “dielectric member” of claim 7, is intended to
“serve as caps that cover antennas that are mounted within
housing 12” ([Zhang ¶ 64]). One of ordinary skill would not
have made dielectric portion 12-2B “transparent,” as doing so
would reveal the underlying antenna to a user and be unsightly.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant offers no evidence supporting this contention.
Contentions of counsel, however, cannot take the place of factually
supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40
(Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We are not persuaded that the Appellant’s unsupported contentions
regarding unsightliness outweigh Zhang’s clear teachings regarding the use
of glass in fabricating a dielectric housing or portions thereof. Zhang ¶ 39;
see also Sonoda, 2:50–56 (disclosing application of a printed insulating ink
layer to one surface of a transparent plate to render the plate opaque and
“thereby improve the appearance of the timepiece”); cf. Spec., 2:26–3:8 (“A
layer of opaque masking material such as a layer of patterned black ink may
be provided on the underside of the transparent rectangular display member
to block interior device components from view.”). Thus, we are not
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

14

persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 7 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Zhang and Hill, and we sustain that rejection.
3. Independent Claim 15
The Examiner again relies on substantially the same teachings of
Zhang to teach or suggest the majority of the limitations of independent
claim 15. Final Act. 6–7. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds:
Since Zhang does not explicitly teach[] “antennas with
conductive traces formed directly on the dielectric structures” the
Examiner used Hill figures 1 and 13 and [Hill ¶ 33]6 to show
antenna with conductive traces (in this case bezel 14 that can also
be used as an antenna) can be formed directly on the dielectric
housing 12 with proper motivation to combine the two
references.
Ans. 8; see Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds “Hill in figure 1 and 13
teaches an electronic device comprising dielectric structures (Housing 12,
[Hill ¶ 33]) opposite the display cover (bezel 14) that form an entirety of a
rear surface of the electronic device opposite the front surface 14.” Final
Act. 7; see Zhang ¶ 41 (describing position of bezel 14 in device 10). Zhang
discloses, “[t]he first antenna (depicted as antenna 54 in FIG. 3A) may be
formed from an elongated resonating element such as strip of stamped
conductor or a trace on a flex circuit.” Zhang ¶ 65 (emphasis added).
Further, the Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
would have had reason to combine the teachings of Zhang and Hill to
achieve the devices, as recited in claim 15. Final Act. 7.

6 Although the Examiner cites to “para. 0065” of Hill, we understand the
correct citation to be to Hill ¶ 33.
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

15

Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 15 for three
reasons. Appeal Br. 11–13; Reply Br. 8–10. After considering those
reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs.
First, similar to the contentions presented with respect to claim 1,
Appellant contends Zhang does not teach or suggest “an antenna comprising
an antenna ground, an antenna resonating element that includes conductive
traces formed directly on the dielectric structures,” as recited in claim 15.
Appeal Br. 12; see id. at 19 (Claims App.) (claim 15). In particular,
Appellant contends Zhang’s Figures 8 and 107 show antenna resonating
element 54-1B is attached to mounting structure 66 and “[m]ounting
structure 66 does not form the rear surface of Zhang’s device, as it is
covered by dielectric portion 12-2.” Id. at 11–12. Further, because Zhang
discloses
“the tail of the first antenna’s resonating element may be
mounted in a location in the interior of device 10 so that the tail
is not immediately adjacent to the surface of housing portion
12-2B” (see [Zhang ¶ 65]). Zhang’s antenna resonating element
54-1B is therefore not equivalent to the antenna resonating
element mounted on a dielectric member that forms the rear face
of an electronic device, as recited in claim 1.
Id. at 12. For substantially the same reasons given above with respect to
claim 1, Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive.
We agree with the Examiner that Zhang discloses antenna resonating
element 54-1 that includes conductive traces formed directly on dielectric
substrate 90. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Zhang ¶¶ 71, 89, 91, Fig. 9). In
particular, Zhang discloses:

7 See supra note 5.
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

16

Antenna resonating element 54-1B may be formed from a
strip of metal (as an example). Antenna resonating element 54-
1B may be a free-standing structure, a trace that is patterned on
the surface of a substrate such as a flex circuit, or may be
attached to other suitable mounting structures. With one
illustrative arrangement, which is sometimes described herein as
an example, antenna 54 is formed from a strip of metal that is
mounted to a dielectric support structure such as support
structure 90 (sometimes referred to as a chassis or carrier).
Zhang ¶ 91 (emphases added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Zhang teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Second, Appellant contends, “[e]ven if Zhang were modified based on
the teachings of Hill, the combination would not have antenna resonating
element conductive traces directly on a dielectric member that forms a rear
face of a device.” Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 9–10. In particular,
Appellant contends, “Hill merely discloses that conductive traces are used to
form resonating element 54-1, which is attached to support structure 102,
which in turn is an extension of ground plane 54-2.” Reply Br. 9 (citing Hill
¶ 69, Fig. 12); see Appeal Br. 12 (“Hill fails to show or suggest that support
structure 102 forms a rear face of an electronic device.”).
Nevertheless, the Examiner does not rely on Hill to teach or suggest
that support structure 102 forms a rear face of an electronic device. Instead,
the Examiner finds Zhang discloses the entire housing may be formed of a
dielectric. Final Act. 7 (citing Zhang ¶ 39); see Ans. 8; see also Hill ¶ 33
(“In some situations, case 12 may be formed from a dielectric or other low-
conductivity material, so that the operation of conductive antenna elements
that are located in proximity to case 12 is not disrupted.”). The Examiner
relies on Zhang to teach or suggest such a dielectric support structure may be
a portion of the housing “opposite the display cover layer that form an
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

17

entirety of a rear surface of the electronic device opposite the front surface.”
Final Act. 6 (citing Zhang ¶ 42, Figs. 3B, 4A).
The Examiner finds Hill discloses that an antenna resonating element
including conductive traces may be formed directly on a dielectric support
structure, such as support structure 102. Ans. 8; see Hill ¶ 71 (“Arms 98 and
100 [of an antenna resonating element] may be formed directly on support
structure 102 or may be formed on a separate structure such as a flex circuit
substrate that is attached to support structure 102 (as examples).” (emphasis
added)), ¶ 72 (“Resonating element 54-1 may be formed by any suitable
antenna fabrication technique such as metal stamping, cutting, etching, or
milling of conductive tape or other flexible structures, etching metal that has
been sputter-deposited on plastic or other suitable substrates . . . .”
(emphasis added)). Thus, Hill teaches that an antenna resonating element
including conductive traces may be formed on suitable substrates, and we
agree the combined teachings of Zhang and Hill teach or suggest the
disputed limitation.
Third, Appellant again contends the Examiner relies on improper
hindsight to combine the teachings of Zhang and Hill to achieve the devices,
as recited in claim 15. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 10. Given the discussion
above of the teachings of Zhang and Hill, we are persuaded the Examiner
relies on knowledge that was within the level of ordinary skill at the time of
the application, and we are not persuaded the Examiner relies on knowledge
gleaned only from the Appellant’s disclosure.8 Final Act. 7; Ans. 8–9.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner relied on improper hindsight

8 See supra Section A.1. (discussing alleged improper hindsight).
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

18

to find the combined teachings of Zhang and Hill render obvious the
devices, as recited in claim 15.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 15 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Zhang and Hill, and we sustain that
rejection. Further, Appellant does not challenge the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 16–20 separately from its challenge to their base claim,
independent claim 15; and, therefore, we also sustain the rejection of those
claims.
B. Obviousness over Zhang and Sonoda
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 8–10, 13, and 14 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Zhang and Sonoda. Final Act. 9–
13. Appellant only contests the rejection of independent claim 8. Appeal
Br. 9–11. For the reasons given below, we are not persuaded the Examiner
errs, and we sustain this rejection.
The Examiner yet again relies on substantially the same teachings of
Zhang to teach or suggest the majority of the limitations of independent
claim 8. Final Act. 9–10. In particular, claim 8 recites “conductive traces
mounted on the dielectric member that receive wireless signals through the
dielectric member.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds,
“Zhang in figure 9 discloses: conductive traces mounted on the dielectric
member 90 ([Zhang ¶¶ 65, 71]) that receive wireless signals through the
dielectric member (90 and 12-2A and 12-2B); and first and second feed
terminals (86/88) coupled to the conductive traces ([Zhang ¶¶ 71, 89, 91]).”
Final Act. 9–10. For purposes of clarity, however, the Examiner also finds:
Sonoda in figures 1 and 2 teaches conductive traces (antenna 20
formed from a combination of conductive ink layer 23 is
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

19

provided so that the plated metal layer 23) mounted on the
dielectric member (transparent plate 5) that receive wireless
signals through the dielectric member 5; and first and second
feed terminals (terminal 21) coupled to the conductive traces 20.
Id. at 10.
Nevertheless, the Examiner acknowledges “Zhang does not disclose
the [Markush] limitation ‘wherein the dielectric member is formed from a
material selected from the group consisting of: glass and ceramic[.]’” Id.
at 11. Zhang discloses, however, “[a]ntenna resonating element dielectric
support structure 90 may be formed from plastic or any other suitable
dielectric.” Zhang ¶ 92; see id. ¶ 39 (“Housing 12, which is sometimes
referred to as a case, may be formed of any suitable materials including,
plastic, glass, ceramics, metal, or other suitable materials, or a combination
of these materials.” (emphases added)); see also Sonoda, 3:21–24 (“Fitted in
the upper casing 3 is a transparent plate 5 made of an acrylic or
polycarbonate resin or glass” (emphasis added)). Further, the Examiner
finds a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to
combine the teachings of Zhang and Sonoda to achieve the devices, as
recited in claim 8. Final Act. 10–11.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 8 for three
reasons. Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 7–8. After considering those reasons,
we are not persuaded the Examiner errs.
First, similar to the contentions presented with respect to claim 1,
Appellant contends Zhang does not teach or suggest, “conductive traces
mounted on the dielectric member that receive wireless signals through the
dielectric member.” Appeal Br. 10; see Reply Br. 7–8. In particular,
Appellant again contends, “Zhang merely discloses mounting an antenna
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

20

resonating element (54-1B) on a circuit board (66) and covering the element
and circuit board with a dielectric member (12-2B).” Reply Br. 7. We
disagree.
For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we agree
Zhang teaches or suggests mounting an antenna resonating element, which
may include conductive traces, on a dielectric support structure and that such
a structure may include a dielectric portion, such as dielectric portion 12-2A
or 12-2B. See Zhang ¶¶ 39, 64, 71, 89, 91, 101, Figs. 3B, 4A, 5A, 9, 18.
Further, Sonoda’s Figure 2, including our annotations, is reproduced below.

Figure 2 depicts a fragmentary, enlarged cross-sectional view of an
electronic wristwatch according to Sonoda. Sonoda, 2:62–63. As noted
above, transparent plate 5 may be made of a dielectric material, such as
glass, and antenna 20 may receive signals through transparent plate 5. Id. at
3:21–24, 3:67–4:2. Thus, we agree that Zhang, alone or in combination with
Sonoda, teaches or suggests, “conductive traces mounted on the dielectric
member that receive wireless signals through the dielectric member,” as
recited in claim 8. See Final Act. 9–10.
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

21

Second, Appellant contends,
Zhang teaches away from having the antenna resonating element
“immediately adjacent to the surface of housing portion 12-2B”
it would increase proximity effects when a user is holding the
device ([Zhang ¶ 65]). Zhang therefore cannot be modified to
have a dielectric member form a rear face of the device and
“conductive traces mounted on the dielectric member," as in
claim 8. Doing so would increase interference with the
conductive traces, against which Zhang teaches.
Appeal Br. 10; see Reply Br. 8. For substantially the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded that Zhang
teaches away from the mounting of an antenna on a dielectric portion, such
as dielectric portion 12-2A or 12-2B. Ans. 7–8.
Third, Appellant contends, “Sonoda fails to show an antenna mounted
to a dielectric member [that] forms a rear surface of an electronic device.
Instead, Sonoda shows antenna 20 mounted to transparent plate 5, which
forms the front face of Sonoda’s device over display member 11.” Appeal
Br. 10; Reply Br. 7–8. Nevertheless, the Examiner relies on Sonoda, in
combination with Zhang, to teach or suggest, “conductive traces mounted on
the dielectric member that receive wireless signals through the dielectric
member.” Final Act. 9–10. In particular, the Examiner relies on Zhang to
teach or suggest “a dielectric member opposite the display cover layer that
forms a rear surface of the electronic device opposite the front surface.” Id.
(citing Zhang ¶ 39); Ans. 7 (citing Zhang, Figs. 3B, 5A); see Zhang, Fig. 4A
(dielectric portions 12-2A and 12-2B). Thus, we agree that the combined
teachings of Zhang and Sonoda teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 8 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Zhang and Sonoda, and we sustain
that rejection. Further, Appellant does not challenge the obviousness
Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

22

rejection of dependent claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 separately from its challenge
to their base claim, independent claim 8; and, therefore, we also sustain the
rejection of those claims.
C. Obviousness Over Zhang, Sonoda, and Hill
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 11 and 12 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Zhang, Sonoda, and Hill. Final Act. 13–14.
Appellant does not challenge the obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 11 and 12 separately from its challenge to their base claim,
independent claim 8. See Appeal Br. 13. Therefore, because we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 8, we also sustain the rejection of these
claims.
DECISION
1. The Examiner did not err in rejecting:
a. claims 1–7 and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combined teachings of Zhang and Hill;
b. claims 8–10, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Zhang and Sonoda; and
c. claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Zhang, Sonoda, and Hill.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–20 are not patentable.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20.

Appeal 2020-006645
Application 15/424,605

23

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 15–20 103(a) Zhang, Hill 1–7, 15–20
8–10, 13,
14
103(a) Zhang, Sonoda 8–10, 13,
14

11, 12 103(a) Zhang, Sonoda,
Hill
11, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–20
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED