Ex Parte Hand et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2018

14054267 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/054,267 10/15/2013
109501 7590 09/24/2018
Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino
LLP and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
1300 East Ninth Street
Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
Thomas H. Hand
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
NG(ES)022651 US PRI 3866
EXAMINER
DINH, TRINH VO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 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):
rkline@tarolli.com
docketing@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS H. HAND, MICHAELE. COOLEY,
DAVID SALL, and GARY L. KEMPIC
Appeal2017-011457 1
Application 14/054,267
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-13, 15, and 16. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Appellants identify Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 The Examiner withdrew the prior art rejection of claims 10 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l). Ans. 2. However, the Examiner maintained the
rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b ). Id. Accordingly, only claim
14 is not before us for review on appeal. The statement of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) has been modified to reflect the withdrawal of claims
10 and 14.
Appeal 2017-011457
Application 14/054,267
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A reflectarray antenna system comprising:
an antenna feed configured to at least one of
transmit and receive a wireless signal occupying a
frequency band;
a reflector comprising a reflectarray, the
reflectarray comprising a plurality of reflectarray
elements, each of the reflectarray elements comprising a
dipole element, wherein the dipole element of at least a
portion of the plurality of reflectarray elements comprises
a crossed-dipole portion and a looped-dipole portion, the
plurality of reflectarray elements being configured to
selectively phase-delay the wireless signal to provide the
wireless signal as a coherent beam.
Appellants request review of the following rejections from the
Examiner's Final Office Action (App. Br. 3):
I. Claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the
invention. 3
II. Claims 1, 8, 9, 11-13, 15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Maruyama (US 2010/0220036 Al, published
September 2, 2010).
3 Appellants note that the Examiner did not include claim 16 in the
restatement of this rejection in the Answer. Reply Br. 2. At the same time,
Appellants recognize that claim 16 was rejected in the Final Action. App.
Br. 3. Given that the Examiner expressly maintains "[ e ]very ground of
rejection set forth in the Office action mailed 09/22/2016 [(the Final
Action)] from which the appeal is taken" (Ans. 2), we find this omission to
be harmless error.
2
Appeal 2017-011457
Application 14/054,267
III. Claims 1, 2, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gonzalez (US 4,905,014, issued February 27, 1990) and
Maruyama. 4
OPINION
Rejection under 35 USC§ l 12(b)
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-11, and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) as indefinite for the reasons presented by
Appellants in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. We add the following for
emphasis.
The subject matter of independent claim 1 is directed to a reflectarray
that requires a dipole element comprising a crossed-dipole portion and a
looped-dipole portion. The Examiner finds the claim term "looped-dipole"
indefinite because a "dipole antenna" has two poles while a loop antenna is
monopole. Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 4.
However, we agree with Appellants that the term "looped-dipole" is a
descriptor for one portion of the dipole element just like the term "crossed-
dipole" is a descriptor for another portion of the dipole element. Reply Br.
4. This is consistent with the usage of the terms in the Specification. Spec.
,r 1. Given this disclosure, we find that, when read in light of the
Specification, a skilled artisan would understand what is claimed in claim 1.
Moreover, we note that the Examiner had no difficulty in identifying the
4 The Examiner inadvertently omitted claim 11 from this rejection statement.
See Final Act. 9. Given that Appellants addressed the rejection of this claim
on page 17 of the Appeal Brief, we find this to be harmless error and
modified the rejection statement to reflect the Examiner's consideration of
the claim.
3
Appeal 2017-011457
Application 14/054,267
crossed-dipole and loop of Maruyama as components of a dipole element.
See generally Final Act.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not persuasively established that
claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 16 are indefinite. We, therefore, will not sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection.
Rejection under 35 USC§ 102(a)(l)
Appellants present arguments for claims 1, 8, 9, 11 and 12 but do not
present separate arguments for claims 13, 15, and 16, all dependent from
claim 12. See generally App. Br. We, therefore, limit our discussion to the
argued claims and claims 13, 15, and 16 stand or fall with claim 12.
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1, 9,
and 11 for the reasons presented by the Examiner. However, we reverse the
Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 8, 12, 13, 15, and 16 for the reasons
presented by Appellants. We add the following for emphasis.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a reflectarray antenna system that requires a
dipole element comprising a crossed-dipole portion and a looped-dipole
portion.
The Examiner finds Maruyama discloses a reflectarray antenna
system that includes dipole element comprising a crossed-dipole portion and
a looped-dipole portion. Final Act. 6; see also Maruyama ,r,r 93-94, Figures
4
Appeal 2017-011457
Application 14/054,267
3-5, and 9. Thus, the Examiner finds that Maruyama anticipates the subject
matter of claim 1. Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue Maruyama does not describe the claimed dipole
element but, instead, describes separate "crossed dipole array elements,"
arranged on a front surface of a dielectric substrate, and "loop array
elements," arranged on a back surface to operate as a ground plane. App.
Br. 7. According to Appellants, claim 1 requires not separate elements but
"the [individual] dipole element ... compris[ing] a crossed-dipole portion
and a looped-dipole portion" while the individual loops shown on the ground
plane (back surface of the dielectric substrate) of Maruyama Figure 5 are
neither expressly nor inherently part of the same reflectarray elements as the
crossed-dipole elements on the front surface of the dielectric substrate. Id.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments. Appellants' arguments are
premised on claim 1 requiring the claimed dipole portions to be located on
the same surface of a substrate while Maruyama's dipole portions are
located on different surfaces of a substrate. However, as the Examiner
explains, the claim language is broad enough to encompass Maruyama's
structure of Maruyama because the argued features do not appear in the
claim language. Ans. 5-7. Further, the Specification describes a dipole
element as one comprising a crossed-dipole portion and a looped-dipole
portion. Spec. ,r 4. Appellants do not direct us to any portion of the
Specification where the dipole element is described as requiring the
respective portions on the same surface.
We also find Appellants' argument that Maruyama does not disclose
correspondence between the described crossed-dipole and loop (App. Br. 8),
unpersuasive for the reasons given by the Examiner. Ans. 6-7. Moreover,
5
Appeal 2017-011457
Application 14/054,267
we note that the argued correspondence is inferred from Maruyama's
disclosure, as shown in Maruyama's Figure 9.
Thus, Appellants have not adequately distinguished the subject matter
of claim 1 from the invention described in Maruyama.
Claim 9
Claim 9 requires concentricity between the crossed-dipole portion and
a looped-dipole portion that form the dipole element.
Appellants argue that Maruyama does not describe the feature recited
in claim 9, as illustrated in the Application's Figure 2. App. Br. 10-11.
We are unpersuaded. As explained by the Examiner, Figures 3-5 and
9 show a cross-dipole portion of a dipole element and a looped-dipole
portion of a dipole element arranged concentrically. Final Act. 7; see also
Ans. 10-11. Maruyama's Figure 9 best illustrates the arrangement.
Appellants' argument does not explain why this disclosure does not describe
a concentric arrangement of the dipole portions. If Appellants' reference to
the Application's Figure 2 is to argue the specific shape of the cross-loop
dipole, we note that the claim does not require a specific shape. Moreover,
the Specification discloses that the crossed-loop dipole element can also
have a square perimeter, the shape disclosed by Maruyama. Spec. ,r 30.
Claim 11
Claim 11 requires disposing the dipole element on a single layer
substrate that interconnects the dipole element and a conductive ground
layer.
6
Appeal 2017-011457
Application 14/054,267
The Examiner finds Maruyama discloses the dipole element of each of
the plurality of reflectarray elements is disposed on a single layer substrate
that interconnects the dipole element (reflective element) and a conductive
ground layer (Ground Plane). Final Act. 7; see also Maruyama Figures 3-5,
11. Maruyama's Figure 5 shows the cross-dipole portion and the looped-
dipole portion disposed on opposite surfaces of a single layer substrate. See
also Maruyama Figure 9. Maruyama's Figure 11 shows the structure of the
dipole elements on a substrate interconnected with a ground plane.
We have considered Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 11
but are unpersuaded. App. Br. 12. As with claim 1, Appellants' arguments
for claim 11 are also premised on Appellants' dipole element requiring the
respective dipole portions on the same surface of a substrate. However, the
claim only requires that the dipole portions be on the same substrate layer,
which is taught by Maruyama's Figures 5 and 9. Maruyama's Figure 11
shows a structure of a microstrip reflect array according to Maruyama's first
disclosed embodiment. Maruyama ,r 65. This first embodiment corresponds
to the embodiment shown in Maruyama's Figures 3-5. Id. ,r,r 93-96. Thus,
as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 12) and contrary to Appellants'
contention (App. Br. 12), Maruyama discloses disposing the dipole element
on a single layer substrate that interconnects the dipole element and a
conductive ground layer. Therefore, Appellants have not shown reversible
error.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given
above.
7
Appeal 2017-011457
Application 14/054,267
Claim 8
Claim 8 requires an additional dipole element the dipole element
comprising a crossed-dipole portion absent the looped-dipole portion.
We agree with Appellants that there is reversible error in the
Examiner's finding of anticipation. App. Br. 8-10.
The Examiner reasons that any crossed-dipole portion of Maruyama
can be the claimed crossed-dipole portion absent the looped-dipole portion
for purposes of claim 8. Ans. 7-8. However, Maruyama's Figures 3-5
show an association between all crossed-dipole and looped-dipole portions.
Given the Examiner's earlier finding that this disclosed association forms
the claimed dipole element, the Examiner does not direct us to any
disclosure in Maruyama of using a crossed-dipole portion not associated
with a looped-dipole portion as a dipole element. Thus, the Examiner has
not shown that Maruyama describes the subject matter of claim 8 within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claim 12
Claim 12 is directed to a method for providing dual-band wireless
transmission via a reflectarray antenna system. In addressing this claim, the
Examiner determines that Maruyama' s apparatus would perform the claimed
method. Final Act. 7.
We agree with Appellants that there is reversible error in the
Examiner's finding of anticipation. App. Br. 12-13. The Examiner directs
us to no portion of Maruyama as anticipating the claimed method. In
addition, the Examiner has not provided an analysis of why or how
Maruyama's apparatus would be capable of performing the claimed method.
8
Appeal 2017-011457
Application 14/054,267
Thus, as argued by Appellants, the Examiner has not met the minimum
threshold of establishing anticipation within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) for claim 12.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims
8. 12. 13, 15, and 16 for the reasons presented by Appellants and given
above.
Rejection under 35 USC§ 103
Claims 1, 2, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gonzalez and Maruyama. We refer to the Examiner's
Final Action for a complete statement of this rejection. 5 Final Act. 8-9.
We have reviewed the respective positions provided by Appellants
and the Examiner for this rejection. Having found Appellant's arguments
unpersuasive as to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) over Maruyama, we likewise do not find Appellant's arguments
persuasive regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 11 over the combined
teachings of the Gonzalez and Maruyama. The teachings of Gonzalez do not
detract from the teachings of Maruyama. Therefore, we also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
reasons given above.
ORDER
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is reversed.
5 Appellants argue claims 1 and 11 separately and rely on the arguments
presented for claim 1 to address the rejection of claim 2. App. Br. 14--18.
9
Appeal 2017-011457
Application 14/054,267
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1, 9, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) is affirmed.
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 8, 12, 13, 15, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) is reversed.
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1, 2, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 ).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10