ELECTROLUX APPLIANCES AKTIEBOLAG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 10, 2020

2019006650 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 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.
15/029,342 04/14/2016 Jennifer Burkhardt AEG-55990 3713
116 7590 09/10/2020
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
EXAMINER
PHAN, THO GIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2020 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 JENNIFER BURKHARDT, BIANCA PUCHINGER,
JUAN PABLO RODRIGUEZ CEPEDA, and OMAR HOUBLOSS
Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342
Technology Center 2800
BEFORE JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY,
and MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Substitute
Specification filed September 25, 2017 (“Spec.”); Non-Final Office Action
mailed July 2, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed February 18,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 10, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief filed September 10, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–17. Appeal Br. 9.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to antenna arrangements
including a particular feed location and shape that provide a resonating
antenna body with wideband transmission and reception characteristics.
Spec. 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 16):
1. Antenna arrangement comprising:
- a ground-connecting part at one end,
- a shape part distal from the ground-connecting part with a
curvature, the curvature having an elliptical shape,
- a slit in the curvature, and
- a feed located within the slit,
wherein the shape part has a trapezoidal part next to the
curvature, the trapezoidal part extending from an end of the slit.

Claim 16 is also independent and similarly recites an antenna
arrangement, except that instead of the curvature having an elliptical shape,
claim 16 recites “the curvature having a heart shape.” Id. at 17.

2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Electrolux Appliances Aktiebolag as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Deming et al.
hereinafter “Deming”
US 5,734,350 March 31, 1998
Chiba et al.
hereinafter “Chiba”
JP 2000068736 A March 3, 2000
Haneishi et al.
hereinafter
“Haneishi”
WO 2013/031518 A1 March 7, 2013
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4–8, and 10–16 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haneishi and Chiba. Non-
Final Act. 2–3.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Haneishi, Chiba, and Deming. Non-Final
Act. 3–4.

OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant presents arguments only with respect to claims 1 and 16
subject to this rejection. See Appeal Br. 12–14. Thus, we select claims 1
and 16 as representative for disposition of this rejection, with the
patentability of the remaining claims standing or falling therewith. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342

4
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claims 1 and 16 as obvious over Haneishi and Chiba, the
Examiner found Haneishi discloses an antenna arrangement having a
ground-connecting part, a shape part, a slit, a feed as recited in claims 1 and
16. Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner found Haneishi fails to disclose a
shape part with a curvature that has either an elliptical or heart shape, and
wherein the shape part has a trapezoidal part next to the curvature, the
trapezoidal part extending from an end of the slit. Id. at 2–3. The Examiner
found Chiba discloses a shape part with a curvature that is “almost an
elliptical shape,” and a trapezoidal part next to the curvature extending from
an end of the slit. Id. at 3. The Examiner determined it would have been
obvious to have provided Haneishi with a shape part having a curvature of
an elliptical or heart shape with a trapezoidal part next to the curvature and
extending from the end of the slit “for the purpose of providing a
miniaturized antenna device so as to improving [sic] the antenna gain and
cost.” Id. The Examiner determined also that it would have been obvious to
have employed different shapes, because “such a modification would have
involved a mere change in the shape or profile of a component,” which is
“generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.”
Id. The Examiner determined also that “the length or size or shape of the
antenna elements is frequency dependent based on the wavelengths of the
transmitting and receiving antenna devices.” Ans. 9–10.

Appellant’s contentions
Appellant contends Chiba does not disclose an elliptical shape as
recited in claim 1, because all the antennas described in Chiba are
Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342

5
asymmetrical, whereas an elliptical shape is symmetrical. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant argues there is no suggestion to modify the antenna arrangements
of Haneishi or Chiba with an elliptical shape, because Chiba discloses the
shape of the conductor plate is “arbitrary.” Id. Appellant presents a similar
argument with respect to the heart shape curvature recited in claim 16. Id. at
13. Appellant argues the claimed trapezoidal part in combination with the
elliptical shape as recited in the claims improves the resonating and
transmission/reception characteristics in terms of wideband capabilities of
the antenna arrangement. Id. at 12–13. Appellant contends the prior art
discloses the antenna shape is arbitrarily selected. Id. at 13. As a result,
Appellant contends Chiba teaches away from selecting an antenna with a
specific shape and the only way to arrive at the claimed shape is by chance,
which is not obviousness. Id.
Appellant contends none of the prior art discloses a trapezoidal part
next to the curvature where the trapezoidal part extends away from the slit,
because Chiba discloses continuously curved lateral edges such that no
trapezoidal shape is evident. Id.

Issue
Has Appellant demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
position that an antenna arrangement with a curvature having either an
elliptical shape (claim 1) or a heart shape (claim 16) and a trapezoidal part
next to the curvature would have been obvious over Haneishi and Chiba?

Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342

6
Discussion
Claim 1
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As to the presence
of an elliptical curvature in Chiba, the Examiner has annotated Figure 14(b)
and 14(d) of Chiba to show the arrangement of the curvature and trapezoidal
part in the Answer, where the annotated version of Figure 14(b) is
reproduced below. Ans. 8–9.

Figure 14(b) of Chiba depicts an antenna with annotations including
arrows labeled “curvature” and a trapezoid labeled “trapezoidal part”
provided by the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that the curvatures
depicted in Chiba are elliptical in nature as shown in the annotated Figure of
Chiba such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342

7
to adjust the curvature to the extent any adjustment would be needed to meet
the recitation in claim 1 of “having an elliptical shape.”
In this regard, Appellant provides an annotated drawing of Figure 2 of
the present application to show an ellipse (with the dotted line corresponding
to the ellipse extending across the space created by the slits) and a trapezoid
reproduced below. Appeal Br. 10.

Annotated Figure 2 depicts an antenna arrangement where a broken-
line ellipse has been drawn “approximating and highlighting the location of
the elliptical shape” and “approximating and highlighting the location of the
trapezoidal shape” in the antenna arrangement. Appeal Br. 10 nn.1, 2.
We observe that Figure 14(b) of Chiba could also be annotated to
show a similar ellipse, such that in addition to the discussion above,
Appellant’s arguments that Chiba’s antennas are asymmetrical as opposed to
symmetrical are not persuasive.3 Such arguments do not fully consider the

3 As a result of our determination, we do not address the Examiner’s reliance
in the Answer on Forster et al. (US 2003/0132893 A1) to indicate that
elliptical shapes are well known shapes for antennas. Ans. 6. We observe
that Forster is not included in the rejections on appeal, such that in the event
Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342

8
Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
able to adjust the shape of the antenna as desired.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner’s annotation to show the trapezoidal part in Chiba is not accurate
because Chiba’s entire side edges are continuously curved. That is, the
Examiner’s annotation fairly encompasses the entire portion of the portion
of Chiba’s antenna, which “extend[s] from an end of the slit” as recited in
claim 1 to show the trapezoidal part, such that in contrast to Appellant’s
arguments, the Examiner’s annotation is not arbitrary. The slight curvature
in that portion of Chiba’s antenna does not detract from the Examiner’s
interpretation. Indeed, if Appellant’s annotated Figure 2 is sufficient to
approximate an elliptical shape, we do not see a distinction between such an
annotation and the Examiner’s annotation of Chiba’s figures to show a
trapezoidal part.
As to Appellant’s argument that Chiba discloses the antenna shapes
are arbitrary,4 we agree with the Examiner that rather than teach away from

of further prosecution of the instant application and that should the Examiner
rely on Forster in order to explain how antenna shapes would have been
obvious, Forster should be included in any grounds of rejection to that
effect.
4 Although both Appellant and the Examiner seem to accept that Chiba
discloses the shape of the antenna is “arbitrary” (Appeal Br. 12 (citing Chiba
¶¶ 35, 51); Ans. 6), we are unable to find a full English translation of Chiba
in the record, and neither Appellant nor the Examiner refers to such a full
English translation. Thus, even if Chiba actually does disclose the shape of
the antenna is “arbitrary,” we are unable to evaluate such a disclosure in the
context of the full description of Chiba. See MPEP § 2120(II) (explaining
that when an English abstract is relied upon to support a rejection, the
evidence relied upon is the facts contained in the abstract not additional facts
that may be contained in the underlying full text document).
Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342

9
adjusting the shapes of antennas, such a disclosure would indicate that
antenna shapes would have been adjusted as needed for the particular
application and antenna properties as determined by the Examiner and
discussed above. In this case, as the Examiner found, Haneishi, Chiba, and
the instant application are all directed to planar F inverted antennas (Ans. 4,
citing Haneishi, title, Abstr.; Chiba Abstr.; Spec. 4), and Appellant has not
specifically addressed the Examiner’s rationale that the shape of the antenna
would have been adjusted in order to improve antenna gain and cost, or as
needed based on the frequency and wavelength of the transmitting and
receiving devices.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2, 4–8, and 10–15 dependent therefrom as obvious over Haneishi and
Chiba.

Claim 16
As to claim 16, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
sufficiently established that Chiba discloses a “curvature having a heart
shape” as recited in claim 16. In this regard, the Examiner has not
sufficiently explained how the antenna shapes of Chiba as shown in the
annotated version of Figure 14(b) reproduced above, would have been
modified to produce a curvature having a “heart shape” as recited in claim
16.5

5 We observe that the Specification relies on Figure 2 (reproduced above in
annotated form) for a curvature that “substantially resembles a heart shape”
(Spec. 9, ll. 9–10), whereas claim 16 recites “the curvature having a heart
shape.” We observe that the definition of “heart shape” is “Shaped like the
conventional representation of a heart, with two equal curves meeting at a
Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342

10
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 as
obvious over Haneishi and Chiba.

Rejection 2
Appellant does not set forth separate arguments with respect to claim
17, which depends from claim 1, and is subject to Rejection 2. Appeal Br.
14.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 for
similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–8,
10–16
103 Haneishi, Chiba 1, 2, 4–8,
10–15
16
17 103 Haneishi, Chiba,
Deming
17
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–8,
10–15, 17
16

point at the bottom and a cusp at the top.”
https://www.lexico.com/definition/heart-shaped (accessed September 3,
2020). Upon further prosecution, the Examiner may consider whether the
scope of claim 16 is sufficiently clear/supported and whether, if claim 16 is
amended, the shapes disclosed in Chiba “substantially resemble a heart
shape.”
Appeal 2019-006650
Application 15/029,342

11
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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 IN PART