Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 10, 2016

13184692 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/184,692 07/18/2011
21364 7590 11/10/2016
US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY
ATTN: RDRL-LOC-1
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI, MD 20783-1138
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
YounM. Lee
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.
ARL 10-03 1938
EXAMINER
TRAN,HAIV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUN M. LEE
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.. ... ... 1 ... ... ---....-.....- ........ ,,,........... ...... _ ... /'..... ... ,......... .... ~ ••
Appellant' appeals under j) u.:s.c. ~ lj4(a) trom the tmal KeJect10n
of claims 1-19 and 21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the United States of
America, as represented by the Secretary of the Army (App. Br. 2).
2 Claim 20 was canceled.
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellant's invention relates to a planar monopole antenna with an
ultra-wideband characteristic having a microwave absorber on an opposing
face of the antenna substrate (Spec. i-f 2).
Representative Claim
1. A planar monopole antenna comprising:
a dielectric substrate having a first surface and an opposing
rearward surface;
an electrically conductive antenna element adhered to the
first surface of said dielectric substrate;
an electrically conductive coplanar waveguide in electrical
communication with said antenna, said coplanar waveguide
adhered to the first surface of said dielectric substrate;
two ground planes adhered to the first surface of said
dielectric substrate as part of the coplanar waveguide; and
a microwave absorber layer adhered to the rearward
surface of said dielectric substrate, the microwave absorber layer
extending to the periphery of the rearward surface of the
dielectric substrate.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadan et al. (US 6,525,691 B2; issued
Feb. 25, 2003) and Johnson (US 5,828,340; issued Oct. 27, 1998) (Final Act.
2-14).
2
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Varadan, Johnson, and Kuroda (US 7,180,466 B2; issued Feb. 20,
2007) (Final Act. 15).
Claims 7, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Varadan, Johnson, and Connolly et al. (US 4,038,660;
issued July 26, 1977) (Final Act. 15-17).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Varadan, Johnson, and Pelissier et al. (LNA-Antenna Codesignfor
UWB Systems, Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on
Circuits and Systems 4711 (2006)) (Final Act. 18).
Appellant's Contentions
Appellant contends the following:
1. Regarding independent claims 1, 11, 15, and 16, the Examiner fails to
explain how or why Johnson;s coplanar waveguide would benefit Varadan;s
antenna, thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to
combine the teachings of Varadan and Johnson (App. Br. 7-9).
2. The Examiner erred by asserting the use of Johnson's coplanar
feeding structure with Varadan's antenna structure is a matter of design
choice, because the structure and function of each antenna is different (App.
Br. 9-10). Specifically:
a. Varadan uses a fractal pattern monopole antenna, which is
independent of wavelength and has a hemispherical radiation profile,
whereas Johnson uses a tab monopole antenna that is based on
operational wavelength and has an omni-directional radiation pattern
in azimuth (App. Br. 11 and 14--15; Reply Br. 5---6).
3
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
b. Varadan's antenna is either perpendicular to the ground plane
or stacked behind the substrate; Johnson's co-planar antenna and
ground plane are arranged parallel to one another (App. Br. 12-13;
Reply Br. 3--4).
c. The arrangement of Varadan's substrate and ground plane,
which are individually produced and then joined together, does not
suggest the entire antenna structure is amenable to printing, as
suggested by the Examiner (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 6-7).
3. V aradan teaches away from the use of conventional antennas, such as
the tab antenna of Johnson, by disclosing the advantages of fractal antennas
over conventional antennas (App. Br. 12).
4. The combination of Varadan and Johnson does not teach enabling the
antenna with a microwave absorber layer to operate with a reduced return
loss and lower operating frequency, as required in claims 11 and 16 (App.
Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 7). Varadan teaches the return loss with an absorber
remains above -10 dB for the lowest frequencies, and shows an increase in
return loss for some frequencies (id.).
5. Regarding claim 8, the Examiner errs by finding the thickness of the
microwave absorber layer is a design choice, because Varadan does not
recognize absorber thickness as a result-effective variable, and Varadan's
return loss with the absorber is not improved for all frequencies (App. Br.
18-20; Reply Br. 7-8).
6. Claims 12 and 13 require an energizing step to occur at a frequency
range of between 0 .16 and 1.2 gigahertz, whereas V aradan teaches a return
loss mostly above -10 dB at the claimed frequency range (App. Br. 20;
Reply Br. 9).
4
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
7. Claims 17 and 18 require a return loss of 10 dB or better between 0.88
GHz and 1.2 GHz, whereas Varadan shows a return loss well above -10 dB
under 1 GHz.
8. Regarding claim 4, the Examiner erred in combining Kuroda's
circular antenna with the structure ofVaradan and Johnson, because
geometry is an important design feature for antenna structures and the
Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill would replace
Varadan's fractal antenna with Kuroda's antenna (App. Br. 22-23; Reply Br.
10).
9. The Examiner erred in relying on Connolly to teach the microwave
absorber layer being formed of carbon powder impregnated on sponge, as
recited in claim 7, because Connolly teaches a spacer layer coated with a
carbon film, not an impregnated structure (App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 11 ).
Further, Connolly's absorber for preventing radar reflection would not
improve the performance of an antenna (id.).
10. The Examiner has not provided a reason, other than impermissible
hindsight, for combining the low noise amplifier of Pelissier with the
antenna structure of Varadan and Johnson to reject claim 14 (App. Br. 25-
26; Reply Br. 12).3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments (App. Br. 7-26; Reply Br. 3-12) that the Examiner erred. We
3 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10,
19, and 21 (App. Br. 16). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are
not discussed further.
5
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
disagree with Appellant's above contentions 1-10. We adopt as our own (1)
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-18) and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-11) in response to Appellant's
Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Independent Claims 1, 11, 15, and 16
Regarding Appellant's contentions 1 and 2, we do not agree that the
different structure and function of the antennas of Varadan and Johnson
preclude the Examiner's asserted combination. The test for obviousness is
"what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). When combining references, "a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, the
Examiner finds both Varadan (Ans. 4---6 (citing Varadan, col. 3, 11. 36-40,
which refers to parallel ground plane structure of Fig. 1 lA)) and Johnson
(id. (citing Johnson Fig. 1)) teach a planar antenna and waveguide structure
formed on a substrate. We agree with the Examiner's finding that it was
within the grasp of a skilled artisan to substitute one type of known
waveguide (i.e., Johnson's top surface coplanar waveguide, Fig. 1, elements
12/14) for another known type (i.e., Varadan's back surface waveguide, Fig.
1 lA, element 82) to arrive at the claimed co-planar antenna structure (Ans.
3-7). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (mere substitution of one element for
6
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
another known in the art is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
yield predictable results). Thus, the Examiner has provided "some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness," specifically that the waveguides of Varadan and
Johnson are known functional equivalents (Ans. 7; see KSR, 550 U.S. at
417-18 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's contention 3
that V aradan' s discussion of the advantages of a fractal antenna teaches
away from the combination with Johnson. The Examiner's proffered
combination of Varadan and Johnson does not replace the antenna of
Varadan, but, rather, substitutes the waveguide of Johnson for the waveguide
ofVaradan, as discussed supra (Ans. 4--7).
Appellant's contention 4 that Varadan does not teach a reduced return
loss and lower operating frequency is not persuasive of error, because claims
11 and 16 do not require any specific return loss value or frequency value.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Varadan teaches at least
some points where the operating frequency is lowered due to the reduced
return loss (Ans. 8 (citing Varadan Fig. 6: around 1 GHz, operating
frequency is lowered with the absorber reducing return loss below -10 dB)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Varadan and Johnson.
Claim 8
As to Appellant's contention 5 that the Examiner erred in finding the
claimed microwave absorber thickness to be obvious over the combination
7
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
of V aradan and Johnson, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection,
because Appellant's Specification leaves it to one of ordinary skill in the art
to "conduct experiments to determine adequate thickness [of the microwave
absorber 22] for an antenna or antenna array" (Spec if 19). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that it was within the grasp of a skilled artisan
to select the claimed absorber thickness to achieve a desired antenna
performance (Final Act. 7; Ans. 8-9), and we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Varadan and Johnson.
Claims 12, 13, 17, and 18
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's contentions 6
and 7 that V aradan does not teach an energizing step that provides a return
loss of -10 dB or better for a frequency range between 0.16 and 1.2 GHz
(claims 12 and 13) or a frequency range between 0.88 and 1.2 GHz (claims
17 and 18). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims that is
consistent with Appellant's disclosure does not require the return loss to be
-10 dB or better throughout the entire range, but, rather, at any subset of
frequencies within the range (see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.")). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that Varadan teaches an energizing step, or
operating frequency, at frequencies around 1 GHz that provide -1 OdB or
better return loss (Ans. 9 (citing Varadan Fig. 6)), which are frequencies that
fall within the claimed ranges. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
8
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
rejection of claims 12, 13, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Varadan and Johnson.
Claim 4
Appellant's contention 8 that the Examiner has not explained why one
of ordinary skill would replace Varadan's fractal antenna with Kuroda's
circular antenna is not persuasive of Examiner error. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that it was within the grasp of a skilled artisan to
substitute one type of known antenna (i.e., Kuroda's circular antenna) for
another known type (i.e., the antenna of the combination of Varadan and
Johnson) to arrive at the claimed antenna structure (Ans. 1 O; see KSR, 550
U.S. at 416 (mere substitution of one element for another known in the art is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results)).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadan, Johnson, and Kuroda
Claim 7
Regarding Appellant's contention 9 that Connolly does not teach an
absorber layer formed of carbon powder impregnated on sponge, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error because claim 7 does not require the sponge
itself to be impregnated with carbon, but, rather, carbon powder impregnated
on sponge. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Connolly
teaches a microwave absorber having a carbon powder impregnated layer
(Ans. 10 (citing Connolly, col. 4, 11. 34--45 and Fig. 1, layer 8)) formed on
sponge (id. (citing Connolly, Fig. 1, foam layer 6)). Further, Appellant has
offered no persuasive evidence to rebut the Examiner's finding that a skilled
9
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
artisan would recognize Connolly' s microwave absorber layer material is
suitable for use as the microwave absorber of Varadan and Johnson (Final
Act. 15-16; Ans. 10). As attorney argument alone is not evidence, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Varadan, Johnson, and Connolly. See In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974).
Claim 14
Appellant's contention 10 that the combination ofVaradan, Johnson,
and Pelissier is based on improper hindsight reasoning does not present
sufficient evidence that the Examiner's rejection is based on knowledge
gleaned only from Appellant's disclosure, or based on knowledge which was
beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time (see In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)). We agree with the
Examiner's finding that a skilled artisan would recognize combining a low
noise amplifier with a monopole antenna, as taught by Pelissier, would
improve the performance of the antenna of V aradan and Johnson by
boosting the antenna's signal gain (Final Act. 18; Ans. 10-11).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Appeal2015-006264
Application 13/184,692
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
11