Ex Parte Bafrooei et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201613115169 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016) 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. 13/115,169 05/25/2011 Seyed Pedram Mousavi Bafrooei 60449-221 PUS 1 2917 26096 7590 12/28/2016 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C. 400 WEST MAPLE ROAD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 EXAMINER MIKELS, MATTHEW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2876 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2016 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): ptodocket @ cgolaw. com cgolaw@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEYED PEDRAM MOUSAVI BAFROOEI, WILLIAM BEN MINERS, and OTMAN A. BASIR Appeal 2015-006260 Application 13/115,169 Technology Center 2800 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ Final Rejection of claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intelligent Mechatronic Systems Inc. (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2015-006260 Application 13/115,169 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a wideband, circular polarization, L- shaped monopole slot antenna (Spec. 1 5). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. An antenna comprising: a substrate; a ground plane formed on the substrate, the ground plane having a first monopole slot and a second monopole slot connected together to form an L-shaped monopole slot configured to produce circular polarization, the first monopole slot extending from the second monopole slot to one edge of the ground plane, the second monopole slot extending from the first monopole slot to another edge of the ground plane; and a C-shaped feed line on the substrate. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS Claims 1—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oberschmidt (EP 1158605 Al; pub. Nov. 28, 2001) and Davies (US 2005/0248494 Al; pub. Nov. 10, 2005) (see Ans. 2—5). ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1 and 19 Claim Interpretation Appellants contend Oberschmidt’s monopole slots do not extend to the edge of the ground plane, as recited in claims 1 and 19 (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 1). We are not persuaded. The broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, of “the first monopole slot extending ... to one edge of the ground plane, the second monopole slot extending . . . 2 Appeal 2015-006260 Application 13/115,169 to another edge of the ground plane” (emphasis added) does not preclude the claimed edges from being set back a small distance from the side of the ground plane. In other words, the claims do not require the slot to extend all the way to the side of the ground plane, such that the slots are flush with the side edge. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.”). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Oberschmidf s first monopole slot (i.e., slot 2) extends to “one edge of the ground plane” and second monopole slot (i.e., slot 3) extends to “another edge of the ground plane,” where the edges are set back a small distance from the side of the ground plane (see Ans. 2 (citing Oberschmidt Fig. 1)). Combined Teachings of Oberschmidt and Davies Appellants contend the combination of Oberschmidt and Davies does not teach the claimed antenna comprising a “C-shaped feed line on the substrate” because Oberschmidt teaches the feed line should pass through the monopole slots at an angle of 45 degrees, and substituting Davies’ C- shaped feed line would be contrary to Oberschmidt as it would not form a 45 degree angle (App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 2). Appellants further argue the Examiner has not provided a proper rationale for the combination, because a C-shaped feed line would not be more compact or reduce space (Reply Br. 2). Appellants have not identified a teaching in Oberschmidt that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of a C-shaped feed line as the antenna feed line, thus we do not agree that substituting the C- shaped feed line of Davies is contrary to the teachings of Oberschmidt. See 3 Appeal 2015-006260 Application 13/115,169 In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We therefore agree with the Examiner’s finding that a skilled artisan, in light of the combined teachings of Oberschmidt and Davies and the creative steps that would be employed, would be able to fit the known elements of the references together like pieces of a puzzle to arrive at the claimed antenna having a C- shaped feed line (Ans. 2—3 and 5—6 (citing Davies Fig. 1, C-shaped feed line 12/12a substituted in place of Oberschmidt’s feed line 4)). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (citation omitted). Further, we agree that the Examiner has provided “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” specifically, using a C-shaped feed line provides a longer feed line in a more compact space (Ans. 3; see also Davies 1 5). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417—18 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oberschmidt and Davies. Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 Appellants contend the combination of Oberschmidt and Davies does not teach “the lower arm [of the C-shaped feed line] is parallel to one of the first and second monopole slots,” because moving the location of Oberschmidt’s feed line would change the operation of the antenna, and, therefore, configuring the lower arm to be parallel to one of the slots is not an obvious design choice (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2—3). We are not persuaded. First, the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, of “the lower arm is parallel to one of the first and second monopole slots” does not preclude only a portion of the lower arm being parallel to one of the slots. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 4 Appeal 2015-006260 Application 13/115,169 F.3d at 1369. Second, the combination of Davies’ C-shaped feed line with Oberschmidt’s ground plane antenna does not require moving the location of the feed line to configure a portion of the lower arm parallel to one of the slots. Instead, Oberschmidt shows the end portion of the feed line (i.e., Fig. 1, feed line 4) is parallel to the edge of the ground plane, which is, in turn, parallel to the horizontal slot (i.e., slot 2). Thus, Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error, because the Examiner’s proffered combination that substitutes Davies’ C-shaped feed line in place of Oberschmidt’s feed line would result in the end portion of a lower arm of the feed line being parallel with the edge and the horizontal slot, as taught by Oberschmidt (see Ans. 2—3 and 5—6 (citing Oberschmidt Fig. 1 and Davies Fig- 1)). Claims 5 and 16 Appellants contend the combination of Oberschmidt and Davies does not teach “the lower arm and upper arm [of the C-shaped feed line] terminate at an edge of the substrate,” because Oberschmidt only teaches a single feed line, not an upper and lower arm. Appellants’ contention is not persuasive of Examiner error, because Appellants are essentially attacking the Oberschmidt reference individually where the rejection is based on the combination of Oberschmidt and Davies. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). As discussed supra, the Examiner’s proffered combination substitutes Davies’ C-shaped feed line, which has an upper and lower arm (Ans. 2—3 and 5—6 (citing Davies Fig. 1, C-shaped feed line 12 having two arm portions)), for Oberschmidt’s feed line, and, thus, we agree with the 5 Appeal 2015-006260 Application 13/115,169 Examiner’s finding that the combination teaches the lower and upper arm of the C-shape feed line terminate at the edge of the substrate (id.). Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 Appellants contend the combination of Oberschmidt and Davies does not teach “a connector connected to the upper arm” and “the lower arm is open at the edge of the substrate,” again because Oberschmidt only teaches a single feed line, not an upper and lower arm. As discussed supra, Appellants’ contentions address the references individually, and we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Oberschmidt and Davies teaches a C-shaped feed line with an upper and lower arm (Ans. 2—3 and 5—6). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. We further agree that the combination teaches a connector connected to the upper arm (Ans. 2—3 (citing Oberschmidt 118; see also Davies 120 and Figs. 4—5, end of feed line 12a has connector)), and the lower arm is open at the edge of the substrate (id. (opposite end of Davies feed line from 12a is open)). Remaining Claims No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 11—13 for the reasons stated with respect to independent claim 1, and we sustain the rejection of claims 8—10 for the reasons stated with respect to their base claims 3—7 as well as independent claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 6 Appeal 2015-006260 Application 13/115,169 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation