Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

13457546 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2017)

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.
13/457,546 04/27/2012 Joseph M. Anderson RTN-660AUS/10-1133-US-NP 1991
33164 7590 08/25/2017
RAYTHEON COMPANY
C/O DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP
354A TURNPIKE STREET
SUITE 301A
CANTON, MA 02021
EXAMINER
MUNOZ, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2017 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):
docketing@dc-m.com
amk@dc-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH M. ANDERSON, JARED W. JORDAN, and
CHARLES C. GILBERT
Appeal 2016-000981
Application 13/457,546
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20. The Examiner rejects claims 1—
5, 9, and 11—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yu2 in view of
Debski,3 and adds various other prior art references to reject claims 6—8 and
10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Raytheon Company.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Yu et al., U.S. 6,052,889, issued April 25, 2000.
3 Debski et al., U.S. 4,063,248, issued December 13, 1977.
Appeal 2016-000981
Application 13/457,546
The claims are directed to an antenna and apparatus (see, e.g., claims
1 and 20), and a method of communicating with electromagnetic energy
representing information by assembling an apparatus (claim 16). Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. An antenna, comprising:
a suspended air stripline (SAS) disposed in a housing,
said SAS having a proximate end and a distal end;
a ridged waveguide coupler having a proximate end and a
distal end, said proximate end of said ridged waveguide coupler
disposed substantially in an aperture in said housing and
coupled thereto, said aperture located above said distal end of
said SAS; and
one or more radiating elements coupled to the distal end
of said ridged waveguide coupler,
wherein said one or more radiating elements are
configured to couple electromagnetic energy from the
proximate end of said SAS, through said ridged waveguide
coupler, and into free space.
Corrected Claims Appendix (Resp. to Notification of Non-Compliant
Appeal Br. (dated Mar. 17, 2015)).
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Yu teaches an antenna with a suspended air
stripline (58) (SAS), a coupler (20), and radiating elements (22) where the
radiating elements are configured to couple electromagnetic energy from the
proximate end of the SAS through the ridged waveguide coupler and into
free space as required by claim 1. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner
acknowledges that Yu does not teach using a ridged waveguide coupler, but
finds that Debski teaches such a ridged waveguide coupler at 10. Final Act.
4—5. According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious at the time of
the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used “the
2
Appeal 2016-000981
Application 13/457,546
ridged waveguide coupler of Debski in the antenna apparatus of Yu ‘to
provide a relatively wide band-width of radiator operation.’” Final Act. 6
(quoting Debski col. 3,11. 59-66). The Examiner makes analogous findings
and conclusions in the rejections of the other independent claims, claims 16
and 20. Final Act. 7—9.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred with
regard to the finding of a suggestion to combine. Appeal Br. 14.
Yu discloses a radio frequency antenna (10) (Fig. 1) that includes
broadband radiating elements (18) (Figs. 2—3) affixed onto plate (12) (Figs.
5—6). Yu col. 4,11. 1—35; col. 5,11. 1—6. As shown in Figure 3, each
broadband radio frequency radiating element (18) includes a generally
parallelepiped, hollow body (20), which will be between the ear-like arms
(radiating elements 22) and suspended air stripline (SAS) (58 in Fig. 7, also
labeled 50 in Figs. 5—6) in the assembled antenna. Yu col. 4,11. 13—20; col.
5,1. 66—col. 6,1. 1.
As shown in Figures 3 and 4, within the hollow body (20) is an L-
shaped conductor (36) and transmission line cavities (28, 30) that serve as a
coaxial transmission line for RF energy travelling to or from the ear-like
arms (22) (radiating elements). Yu col. 4,11. 60-63. Thus, radiating
elements (ear-like arms 22) are configured to couple electromagnetic energy
from the SAS, through the coaxial transmission line (shaped conductor 36
and cavities 28, 30) within the hollow body (20), and into free space.
Debski teaches a different configuration for a different kind of
antenna. Debski teaches a multiple polarization antenna with a waveguide
radiator 10 and a dipole radiator 12. Debski col. 3,11. 21—33. Radiator 10
receives an electromagnetic signal through coaxial connector 44. Debski
col. 3,1. 33—col. 4,1. 10. Dipole radiator 12 receives a separate
3
Appeal 2016-000981
Application 13/457,546
electromagnetic signal through coaxial connector 38. Debski col. 4,11. 12—
32.
The Examiner’s rejection rests on the modification of Yu’s hollow
body (20) with Debski’s radiator (10), but these two components perform
different functions. Yu’s hollow body is a housing around a coaxial
transmission line that delivers an electromagnetic signal to ear-like arms
(radiators 22). Debski’s radiator (10) is a radiator that receives an
electromagnetic signal from a coaxial connector 44 and radiates the signal
into space. Debski col. 3,11. 29—38. The Examiner fails to provide an
adequate reason why one would substitute Yu’s hollow body (20) with
Debski’s radiator (10). The Examiner cites column 3, lines 59—66 of Debski
to support the finding of a reason to make the modification, but this portion
of Debski does not supply the missing evidence. This portion of Debski
discusses a design of a radiator, not a coupler or housing such as that taught
by Yu.
The deficiency of the main rejection is not cured in the Examiner’s
subsidiary rejections.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
4