Ex Parte Srirattana et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 9, 201613022840 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/022,840 02/08/2011 27820 7590 11/14/2016 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Nuttapong Srirattana 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. 2867-815 7506 EXAMINER LINDGREN BALTZELL, ANDREA J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2845 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/14/2016 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): patents@wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NUTTAPONG SRIRATTANA, BRIAN WHITE, and ALEXANDER WAYNEHIETALA 1 Appeal2015-005027 Application 13/022,840 Technology Center 2800 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to radio frequency switches. E.g., Spec. i-f 1; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 8 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief: 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is RF Micro Devices, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal2015-005027 Application 13/022,840 1. A multiport radio frequency switch comprising: a first plurality of switches; a second plurality of switches; an antenna port configured to couple to an antenna; a first inductor having a first end and a second end, the first end of the first inductor electrically coupled to the antenna port, and the second end of the first inductor electrically coupled to the first plurality of switches; a second inductor having a first end and a second end, the first end of the second inductor electrically coupled to the antenna port, and the second end of the second inductor electrically coupled to the second plurality of switches; a capacitor array having a first end and a second end, the first end of the capacitor array electrically coupled to the second end of the first inductor, and the second end of the capacitor array coupled to the second end of the second inductor, wherein the first inductor and the second inductor are configured in series to form an inductor series, and wherein the capacitor array is configured in parallel with the inductor series. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 1. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 2, as indefinite. 2 2. Claims 1, 2, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Seshita et al. (US 2010/0073066 Al, published Mar. 25, 2 Although the Examiner also finds that claim 2 does not further limit independent claim 1, see Ans. 3, the Examiner does not cite § 112, i-f 4 as a basis for the rejection of claim 2. Additionally, we note that this ground of rejection, as stated by the Examiner, does not encompass claims 1 or 4, notwithstanding the fact that those claims include the term "capacitor array" (directly or through claim dependency), which the Examiner finds to be unclear. 2 Appeal2015-005027 Application 13/022,840 2010) in view of Harada et al. (US 2002/0021182 Al, published Feb. 21, 2002). ANALYSIS Rejection 1 The Examiner concludes that claim 2 is indefinite because it recites a "capacitor array" but "no structure for the array is recited." See Ans. 3. The Examiner further determines that "Claim 2 does not further limit Claim 1." Id. We reverse the rejection. The Examiner finds that "capacitor arrays are well known in the art," and that the term "capacitor array indicates more than one capacitor." Ans. 2. Given those findings, we conclude that the term "capacitor array" reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Although the Examiner also finds that "no structure for the array is recited," that appears to be indicative of claim breadth rather than indefiniteness, particularly in view of the Examiner's finding that capacitor arrays are well known in the art. See In re Miller, 441F.2d689, 693 (CCPA 1971) ("[B]readth is not to be equated with indefiniteness .... "). We disagree with the Examiner's determination that "Claim 2 does not further limit Claim 1." See Ans. 3. Claim 2 expressly requires the capacitor array to be programmable; claim 1 does not. On this record, a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's rejection under§ 112, i-f 2. Therefore, we must reverse the rejection. 3 Appeal2015-005027 Application 13/022,840 Rejection 2 Claim 1, which appears above, requires first and second inductors connected in series and having an antenna port between the two inductors, i.e., having first ends "electrically coupled to the antenna port." Claim 1 further requires that "a capacitor array is configured in parallel with the inductor series." Thus, as the Appellants explain, claim 1 requires a capacitor array in parallel with an inductor series that includes an antenna port between two inductors in the inductor series. See App. Br. 6. Relying principally on Harada's Figure 3, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that: [Harada's Figure 3 teaches] many configurations of capacitors and inductors connected in various combinations of series and parallel configurations. C 1, for instance is connected in parallel to L 1. L 1 is connected in series to L2. The reference teaches series connections of inductors and parallel connections of capacitors. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rearrange the parts of the circuit as desired to meet various design needs. Ans. 6. Harada Figure 3 is reproduced below: FIG. 3 T9 ,_J TB T3 T12 lµ L3 L14 C13 I I C14 4 Appeal2015-005027 Application 13/022,840 Figure 3 is a circuit diagram showing an embodiment of Harada's front-end module for a mobile communications apparatus. Harada i-f 11. Largely for reasons expressed by the Appellants, see App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 3, we are not persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's rejection. As an initial matter, it appears that capacitors C 1 and C 11 in Harada are individual capacitors rather than capacitor arrays. The Examiner appears to acknowledge that individual capacitors are distinct from capacitor arrays, see Ans. 2, but the Examiner fails to persuasively explain why C 1 and C 11, individually or in combination, would have been considered to be a capacitor array such, for example, as those disclosed by the Appellants' Figure 5. To the extent that the Examiner relies on LI and L2 as the first and second inductors, see Ans. 6, C 1 is an individual capacitor that is in parallel with L 1, but the Examiner makes no finding that C 1 would also be considered to be in parallel with L2, as required by claim 1 ("wherein the capacitor array is configured in parallel with the inductor series"). Nor does the Examiner find that an individual capacitor is equivalent to a capacitor array, or that it would have been obvious to replace an individual capacitor with a capacitor array. Moreover, the Examiner does not persuasively explain whether either end of inductor L2 could be considered to be electrically coupled to the antenna port, as required by claim 1. To the extent that the Examiner interprets L 1 and L 11 as the first and second inductors, they are individually in parallel with individual capacitors Cl and Cl I, respectively. Although the Examiner correctly finds that Cl is in parallel with L 1 and that C 11 is in parallel with L 11, the Examiner makes no persuasive finding that C 11 is in parallel with L 1 or that C 1 is in parallel 5 Appeal2015-005027 Application 13/022,840 with L 11. See Ans. 10. Instead, the Examiner finds that "they are all electrically connected with one another." Id. The claim, however, requires more than that: It requires that the first inductor series as a whole is in parallel with the capacitor array. Figure 3 of Harada does not appear to disclose a first inductor series in parallel with a capacitor array, even if one were to consider the combination of C 1 and C 11 to be the capacitor array because, as mentioned above, the Examiner does not find that C 1 is in parallel with L 11 or that C 11 is in parallel with L 1. Although we agree with the Examiner that Harada teaches "many configurations of capacitors and inductors connected in various combinations of series and parallel configurations," Ans. 6, for reasons set forth above, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Harada teaches or otherwise renders obvious the particular arrangement required by claim 1. Accordingly, we must reverse the rejection. Because the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 4 does not remedy the error identified above, we likewise must reverse the Examiner's rejection of those claims. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the Examiner's§ 112 rejection of claim 2. We REVERSE the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation