Ex Parte Oh et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2019

14160231 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/160,231 01/21/2014
102469 7590 03/26/2019
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sung Hoon Oh
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.
SC-13-0362-US 1 3905
EXAMINER
CHEN, ZHITONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2019 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNG HOON OH, JOSELITO GA VILAN, and WARREN LEE
Appeal2018-005496 1
Application 14/160,231
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-22, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
November 29, 2017) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 7, 2018); the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 1, 2017); the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed March 7, 2018); and the originally-filed
Specification ("Spec.," filed January 21, 2014). Rather than repeat the
Examiner's findings and determinations and Appellants' contentions in their
entirety, we refer to these documents.
2 Appellants assert NVIDIA Corporation is the real party-in-interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005496
Application 14/160,231
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' recited systems and devices relate "in general, to antennas
and, more specifically, to co-located antennas for handheld electronic
devices." Spec. ,r 1.
As noted above, claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 1 and 13 are
independent, and all of the limitations of claim 1 are repeated in claim 13.
App. Br. 17, 19-20 (Claims App.). Claims 2-12 and 21 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1, and claims 14--20 and 22 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 13. Id. at 17-22.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
Id. at 17.
1. An antenna system, comprising:
a loop antenna element, the loop antenna element
having a positive loop antenna terminal end and a negative
loop antenna terminal end; and
an inverted-F antenna element co-located with the
loop antenna element, the inverted-F antenna element
having a positive inverted-F antenna terminal end and a
negative inverted-F antenna terminal end located
proximate the positive loop antenna terminal end and the
negative loop antenna terminal end, wherein the positive
loop antenna terminal end, negative loop antenna terminal
end, positive inverted-F antenna terminal end and negative
inverted-F antenna terminal end alternate between positive
and negative terminals.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
2
Appeal2018-005496
Application 14/160,231
Name Number
Sanchez3 US 2015/0015445 Al
Ouyang US 2014/0266938 Al
Jenwatanavet US 2014/0232612 Al
Malek US 2014/0159989 Al
Abudul- US 2014/0141731 Al
Gaffoor
Li US 2010/0271264 Al
Fang US 2006/0082506 Al
Bolin US 2004/0137950 Al
Yang US 2002/0146909 Al
Published Filed
Jan. 15,2015 Jul. 11, 2013
Sep. 18,2014 Mar. 18, 2013
Aug. 21, 2014 Feb.21,2013
Jun. 12,2014 Dec. 6, 2012
May 22, 2014 Nov. 21, 2012
Oct. 28, 2010 Oct. 14, 2009
Apr. 20, 2006 Sep.27,2005
Jul. 15, 2004 Mar. 20, 2002
Oct. 10, 2002 Apr. 4, 2002
The Examiner rejects the pending claims on the following grounds.
(1) Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of
Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, and Malek. App. Br. 6.
(2) Claims 4 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang,
Malek, and Li. Id.
(3) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, Malek,
Li, and Yang. Id.
(4) Claims 7, 8, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang,
Malek, and Jenwatanavet. Id.
(5) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, Malek,
and Fang. Id.
3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
3
Appeal2018-005496
Application 14/160,231
(6) Claims 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang,
Malek, and Sanchez. Id.
(7) Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang,
Malek, and Bolin. Id. at 7.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. 4 Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner's
findings in the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact
appearing below for emphasis. We address the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
1. Independent Claim 1
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is rendered obvious over the
combined teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, and Malek. Final Act. 2-
11; see Ans. 2-5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Abudul-Gaffoor
teaches an antenna system having a loop antenna "co-located" with an
4 Appellants do not argue the dependent claims separately from their
independent base claims. App. Br. 11-15; Ans. 6.
4
Appeal2018-005496
Application 14/160,231
inverted-F antenna, each having a positive and a negative terminal. Final
Act. 7-8 ( citing Abudul-Gaffoor ,r,r 40-45, Figs. 1, 3A); see also Spec. ,r 21
( explaining the term "co-located"). The Examiner acknowledges, however,
that "Abudul-Gaffoor does not teach[] explicitly ... wherein the positive
loop antenna terminal end, negative loop antenna terminal end, positive
inverted-F antenna terminal end and negative inverted-F antenna terminal
end alternate between positive and negative terminals." Final Act. 8.
The Specification's Figure 1 is reproduced below.
100
130
FIG. l
Figure 1 depicts antennas manufactured and designed according to the
disclosure. Spec. ,r 9. Initially, we note that, referring to Figure 1, the
Specification explains that loop antenna 110 and inverted-F antenna 160
may include positive and negative terminals 115 and 120 and 165 and 170,
respectively. Id. ,r 20. "In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the ends 115, 120,
165 and 170 alternate (e.g., from an edge 190 of the chassis 195) as follows:
negative loop antenna terminal end 120 / positive loop antenna terminal end
5
Appeal2018-005496
Application 14/160,231
115 / negative inverted-F antenna terminal end 170 / positive inverted-F
antenna terminal end 165." Id. ( emphasis added). Thus, in an exemplary
embodiment, the terminals may "alternate" between negative and positive
from right to left in Figure 1.
The Examiner finds that
Ouyang further teaches:
wherein the positive loop antenna terminal end, negative
loop antenna terminal end, positive inverted-F antenna terminal
end and negative inverted-F antenna terminal end alternate
between positive and negative terminals ([Ouyang ,r,r 39, 43, Fig.
3], multi-pair antenna terminals are arranged as 92-
lA( + )/92-1B(-),92-2A( + )/92-2B(-),92-3A( + )/92-3B(-), where
antennas maybe loop antenna, IFA, and etc.).
Final Act. 8; see Ouyang, Fig. 5 ( depicting the offset orientation of positive
signal path 92-3A and ground signal path 92-3B). Further, the Examiner
notes Bolin teaches that alternating positive and ground terminals was
known in the art. Final Act. 6 ( citing alternating terminal pattern in Bolin,
Fig. 1 ); see Ans. 4. 5
Finally, the Examiner finds that Malek teaches advantages of
alternating terminals "to ensure that the antenna frequency responsive are in
design ranges for an optimized performance because changes to antenna
feed structures such as positions of the positive and/or ground terminal feeds
affect frequency response of antennas." Final Act. 8-9 ( citing Malek ,r 43
("Changes to the structure of the antenna feed for antenna 40 (e.g., the
positions of the positive and/or ground antenna feed terminals among the
5 Appellants contend that Bolin was raised improperly for the first time in
the Examiner's Answer. Reply Br. 2. This contention is incorrect. See
Final Act. 6.
6
Appeal2018-005496
Application 14/160,231
structures of the antenna) affect antenna performance." (emphasis added));
see Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that, in view of Malek's teachings, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the
teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor and Ouyang to achieve the antenna system
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 5; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 ("Under
the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at
the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed.").
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred for at least three reasons.
First, Appellants contend that, because Ouyang's Figure 3 depicts terminals
"94-1 and 96-1, as well as 94-2 and 96-2, are stacked above each other,"
these terminals do not teach or suggest "alternate" terminals. App. Br. 8-9.
As noted above, however, the Examiner notes that Ouyang's Figure 5 shows
offset terminals. Ans. 3--4. Therefore, in view of Bolin's teaching that
alternating terminals was known in the art (see Final Act. 6; Ans. 4--5), we
are persuaded that the Examiner demonstrates Ouyang's Figures 3 and 5
teach or suggest "alternate" terminals, as recited in claim 1 (see Ouyang
,r 43). See also Ouyang ,r 65 ("As shown in FIG. 5, transmission line 92-3
may have a positive signal line 92-3A that is coupled to positive antenna
feed terminal 94-3 in port 2 and may have a ground signal line 92-3B that is
coupled to antenna ground terminal 96-3.").
Second, Appellants contend, "there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Ouyang with the teaching of Abudul-Gaffoor, particularly when
dealing with specific antenna (e.g., terminal) placement." App. Br. 9; Reply
Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants contend, "[t]he Office has provided NO
support for the contention that the antenna performance of Abudul-Gaffoor
7
Appeal2018-005496
Application 14/160,231
would improve by a modification that would require the terminal ends
thereof to alternate between positive and negative terminals." App. Br. 10.
Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that, in view of Bolin's teaching that
alternating terminals was known in the art, Malek's teaching of advantages
of changing terminals provides a reason to combine Abudul-Gaffoor's
teachings of co-located loop and inverted-F antennas, having positive and
negative terminals, with Ouyang's teachings of alternate terminals to
achieve the device recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4--6, 8-9; Ans. 4--5.
Third, Appellants contend that, even if we are not persuaded that
Ouyang is limited to a stacked terminal configuration, the Examiner may not
rely on any relationship between the terminals that may be depicted in
Ouyang's Figure 3 to render pending claim 1 obvious. App. Br. 10. As
noted above, however, the Examiner relies on the depictions in both
Ouyang' s Figures 3 and 5 to support the determination of obviousness.
Ans. 3--4. The drawings are evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex parte Sato, 2012-001276,
slip op. at 6 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2014) (citing In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072
(CCPA 1972); In re Heinrich, 268 F.2d 753, 755 (CCPA 1959)). Therefore,
we find that the Examiner's interpretation of Ouyang's Figures 3 and 5 is
well-founded and persuasive.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combined teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, and Malek, read in
view of the teachings of Bolin, render independent claim 1 obvious, and we
sustain that rejection.
8
Appeal2018-005496
Application 14/160,231
2. Claims 2-22
Appellants do not argue independent claim 13 or the dependent claims
separately. App. Br. 11-15; Ans. 6. Accordingly, on this record, we sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejections of independent claim 13 and the
dependent claims for the reasons given by the Examiner.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting:
(a) Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20 as rendered obvious
over the combined teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, and
Malek;
(b) Claims 4 and 16 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, Malek, and Li;
( c) Claim 5 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of
Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, Malek, Li, and Yang;
( d) Claims 7, 8, and 17 stand rejected as rendered obvious over
the combined teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, Malek, and
J enwatanavet;
( e) Claim 10 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of
Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, Malek, and Fang;
(f) Claims 12 and 19 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, Malek, and Sanchez; and
(g) Claims 21 and 22 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Abudul-Gaffoor, Ouyang, Malek, and Bolin.
(2) Claims 1-22 are not patentable.
9
Appeal2018-005496
Application 14/160,231
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22.
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
10