Ex Parte YAMAZAKI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2018

14135908 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/135,908 12/20/2013 Sunao YAMAZAKI
54066 7590 07/24/2018
MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
C/0 KEA TING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
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.
36856.2903 9735
EXAMINER
LE,LANAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2018 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):
JKEATING@KBIPLA W.COM
uspto@kbiplaw.com
cbennett@kbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNAO YAMAZAKI
Appeal2018-000963
Application 14/135,908
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
non-final rejection of claim 4; claims 2, 3, 5, 7-21, which constitute all other
pending claims in this application, are indicated as allowed. See Non-Final
Act. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2018-000963
Application 14/135,908
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to splitters used in cellular
phones "in which a first band pass filter is connected to an antenna terminal
and a second band pass filter is connected to the antenna terminal and has a
pass band in a higher frequency range than the first band pass filter"
(Abstract).
Independent claim 4, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
4. A splitter comprising:
an antenna terminal and first and second terminals;
a first band pass filter including an input terminal
that is connected to the antenna terminal, an output
terminal that is connected to the first terminal, and a first
pass band that is relatively low;
a high pass filter including an input terminal and an
output terminal, the input terminal of the high pass filter
being connected to the antenna terminal, and including a
second pass band located at higher frequencies than the
first pass band;
wherein the high pass filter is a notch filter that
defines a stop band inside the second pass band;
the high pass filter includes first and second elastic
wave resonators that are arranged in a series arm that links
the input terminal and the output terminal of the high pass
filter and an inductance element that is connected in a
parallel arm that links a connection point between the first
and second elastic wave resonators and a ground potential;
2
Appeal2018-000963
Application 14/135,908
the inductance element is directly connected
between the connection point and the ground potential;
and
the input terminal and the output terminal of the
high pass filter are connected to each other through only
the first and second elastic wave resonators.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Nakamura
Takagi
US 2005/0099244 Al
JP 2010-141859 A
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
May 12, 2005
June 24, 2010
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Takagi and Nakamura. Non-Final Act. 3.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Takagi and Nakamura teaches or suggests the limitation of
"the input terminal and the output terminal of the high pass filter are
connected to each other through only the first and second elastic wave
resonators," as recited in claim 4.
3
Appeal2018-000963
Application 14/135,908
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the "Examiner's interpretation of the phrase
'connected to each other through only' is not consistent with Fig. 2 of
Appellant's drawings, Fig. 7(a) of Nakamura et al., and/or how those skilled
in the art would interpret such a phrase" (App. Br. 9, emphasis in original).
We agree. The Examiner finds that when Figure 7(a) of Nakamura is
redrawn as an identical circuit, that
the input terminal (501) of Nakamura et al and the output
terminal (502) of Nakamura et al are connected to each other
through ONLY the first and second [ surface acoustic] wave
resonators ( 402) and ( 403) via the first path, not taking into
consideration the separate second path that connects the input
terminal (501) and the output terminal (502) ofNakamura via
the inductor (503)
(Ans. 7). Here, the Examiner finds that two paths connect the input terminal
and output terminal: the first path through the surface acoustic wave
resonators, and the second path through the inductor arranged in parallel
with the surface acoustic wave resonators. However, claim 4 requires "the
input terminal and the output terminal of the high pass filter are connected to
each other through only the first and second elastic wave resonators."
"[A]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the
proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1052 (Fed. Cir.
4
Appeal2018-000963
Application 14/135,908
1997). With respect to the claim language, the ordinary usage of "through
only" as understood by one of ordinary in the art would indicate only one
path could connect the input terminal and output terminal of the high pass
filter, and that path travels through the surface acoustic wave resonators. 2
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 4.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Takagi and
Nakamura teaches or suggests the limitation of "the input terminal and the
output terminal of the high pass filter are connected to each other through
only the first and second elastic wave resonators," as recited in claim 4.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
2 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner may consider whether
the presence of inductor LI in Appellant's high pass filter 7 (see Fig. 2)
contradicts the claim's "through only" requirement as understood by one
skilled in the art, as inductor L 1 connects to the path between series arm
resonators S 11 and S22. The Examiner may wish to consider whether the
specification provides sufficient written description support ( or definition)
for the "through only" requirement. See,for example, Spec. ,r,r 35-37.
5