Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2020

15730128 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/730,128 10/11/2017 Yusuke TANAKA MURATA-57804 3429
116 7590 04/01/2020
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
EXAMINER
OUTTEN, SAMUEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2020 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):
patdocket@pearne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YUSUKE TANAKA and HIROKI SHOUNAI

Appeal 2019-003603
Application 15/730,128
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Murata
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003603
Application 15/730,128

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a matching circuit with isolated
grounding for the low pass filter, high pass filter and amplifier (Spec. ¶¶ 1,
6; Claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A matching circuit that performs output impedance
matching for an amplifier, the matching circuit comprising:
a low pass filter; and
a high pass filter,
wherein a ground of the low pass filter and a ground of the high
pass filter are isolated from each other, and
wherein the ground of the low pass filter and a ground of the
amplifier are isolated from each other. 
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gilmore (US 2008/0061901 Al, published
Mar. 13, 2008, “Gilmore”) in view of Goumas et al. (US
2015/0280685 Al, published Oct. 1, 2015, “Goumas”) and
Taniguchi (US 2007/0241839 Al, published Oct. 18, 2007,
“Taniguchi”).
2. Claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Gilmore in view of Goumas, Taniguchi,
and Watanabe et al. (US 2007/0123175 Al, published May 31,
2007, “Watanabe”).
3. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gilmore in view of Goumas, Taniguchi,
Watanabe, and Ma et al. (US 2015/0357989 Al, published Dec.
10, 2015, “Ma”).
Appeal 2019-003603
Application 15/730,128

3
Appellant argues independent claim 1 only (Appeal Br. 3–8).
Therefore, any claim not argued separately will stand or fall with our
analysis of the rejection of claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the rejection of
claim 1 over Gilmore in view of Goumas and Taniguchi are located on pages
2 to 4 of the Final Action.
Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Gilmore, Goumas,
and Taniguchi do teach or other suggest the ground of the low pass filter and
a ground of the amplifier are isolated from each other and the ground of the
low pass filter and a ground of the high pass filter are isolated from each
other (Appeal. Br. 3). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding that
Taniguchi’s disclosure in paragraph 50 teaches or suggests to isolate the
ground for the low pass filter, high pass filter and amplifier is too broad a
reading of Taniguchi (Appeal Br. 3). Appellant argues that Taniguchi’s
paragraph 50 disclosure is specific to isolating electrically via ground
electrodes particular resonators of a plurality of LC parallel resonators (i.e.,
filters) (Appeal Br. 3). Appellant contends that Taniguchi does not mention
electrically isolating elements inside of the filter from elements outside of
the filter (such as an amplifier), the filter itself from other elements (such as
an amplifier), or between filters (Appeal Br. 3). Appellant argues that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have read and understood the art as teaching
the isolation of resonators within a filter, not between the filters themselves
and an amplifier (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not
explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the low
pass filter to isolate specifically from the high pass filter and the amplifier
Appeal 2019-003603
Application 15/730,128

4
(Appeal Br. 4). Appellant contends that the Examiner engaged in
impermissible hindsight (Appeal Br. 4).
The Examiner finds that Gilmore teaches using a low and a high band
pass filter in an impedance matching circuit (Final Act. 2–3). The Examiner
finds that Gilmore does not teach the matching circuit performs output
impedance matching for an amplifier or that a ground of the low and high
pass filters are isolated and wherein the ground of the low pass filter and
amplifier ground are isolated from each other (Final Act. 3). The Examiner
finds that Goumas teaches a matching circuit having a low and a high band
pass filter in combination with an amplifier (Final Act. 3). The Examiner
finds that Taniguchi teaches that a bandpass filter where the ground
electrode is configured to include a plurality of electrically isolated sub
ground electrodes (Final Act. 3).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use an
amplifier in Gilmore’s device as a specific example of the electrical signal
source that may be impedance matched using a combination of low and high
pass filters as taught by Goumas (Final Act. 3). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to isolate the ground of the low pass filter
from the ground of the high pass filter and the ground of the amplifier to
provide the benefit of preventing propagation of a high frequency signal
through the ground electrode (Final Act. 4). The Examiner explains that low
pass filters direct high frequency signals to ground and Taniguchi teaches
that a high pass signal directed through the ground may travel through the
ground electrode and pass into other circuit components connected to the
ground electrode (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that isolation of the
ground electrode of the low pass filter prevents a high frequency signal from
Appeal 2019-003603
Application 15/730,128

5
entering other circuit components and being reintroduced to a signal path as
taught by Taniguchi (Final Act. 4).
We find that the preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion. Specifically, the Examiner finds and Appellant
does not contest that low pass filters direct high frequency signals to ground
(Final Act. 4; Appeal Br., Reply Br. generally). In light of that
understanding in the art coupled with Taniguchi’s teaching that a high pass
signal directed to the ground may travel through the ground electrode and
affect other circuit components, it would have been obvious to provide a
separate grounding of the low pass filter with other components in a circuit.
Indeed, Gilmore’s Figure 8 appears to show a separate grounding for the
phase shift network 815 (i.e., low pass filter as found by the Examiner),
matching network 835 (i.e., high pass filter according to the Examiner) and
switching element 805. Appellant’s arguments do not show reversible error
in the Examiner’s stated rejection. The Examiner did not engage in
impermissible hindsight. Rather, we find that the Examiner applied the
teachings of the references as one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand them.
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that the Examiner has not
supported the allegedly broad reading of Taniguchi (Reply Br. 2). Appellant
argues that Taniguchi’s teaching concerning isolating the grounding
electrodes is limited to passive filter elements and do not include active
amplifier structures (Reply Br. 4). We disagree based upon the uncontested
finding regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would know about low
pass filters as noted above coupled with Taniguchi’s teachings.
Appeal 2019-003603
Application 15/730,128

6
Regarding Appellant’s argument that the Examiner ignored the
request for an affidavit supporting the Examiner’s general knowledge
underlying the rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(d)(2), such request was
made in a Response After Final Action dated July 31, 2018. The Examiner
noted that prosecution was closed and did not enter the Response After Final
as shown by the initialed Response After Final dated August 15, 2018.
Appellant’s request is not before us given the posture of the application.
Appellant argues that the claimed subject matter provides an
improved matching circuit in the Reply Brief on page 4. Appellant does not
allege that the results are unexpected though or provide evidence to
substantiate such an allegation (Reply Br. 4).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over
Gilmore, in view of Goumas and Taniguchi. We further affirm the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections over Gilmore, Goumas, Taniguchi, Watanabe
and Gilmore, Goumas, Taniguchi, Watanabe and Ma for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 9 103 Gilmore, Goumas,
Taniguchi 
1, 6, 9
2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 103 Gilmore, Goumas,
Taniguchi,
Watanabe
2, 4, 7, 8,
10, 11

3, 5 103 Gilmore, Goumas,
Taniguchi,
Watanabe, Ma
3, 5
Overall
Outcome
1–11
Appeal 2019-003603
Application 15/730,128

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED