Ex Parte Bit-Babik et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2010

10945234 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GIORGI G. BIT-BABIK,
CARLO DINALLO and ANTONIO FARABONE
____________

Appeal 2009-001483
Application 10/945,234
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 29, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 19.
The disclosed invention relates to an antenna system in which a
radiating element is electrically coupled to a ground structure at a ground
point, a tuning port, and a feed port (Fig. 2; Spec. 3, 6; Abstract). Along the
Appeal 2009-001483
Application 10/945,234

2
radiating element, the tuning port is located substantially maximally distal to
the feed port (Spec. 7).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. An antenna system (100) comprising:
a ground structure (214);
a radiating element (220) electrically coupled to the ground structure
at a first (211) [sic, (212)], second (212) [sic, (211)], and a third (213) point;
wherein the first point is utilized as a ground for the radiating element;
wherein the second point is utilized as a tuning port for the radiating
element;
wherein the third point is utilized as a feed port for the radiating
element; and
wherein the tuning port is substantially maximally distal to the feed
port along the radiating element.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ollikainen US 2003/0142022A1 Jul. 31, 2003
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based
upon the teachings of Ollikainen.
The Examiner contends (Final Rej. 2) that the tuning port 34 in
Ollikainen is substantially maximally distal to the feed port 30 along the
radiating element 20’. In response, Appellants argue (Br. 8) that:
Ollikainen discloses a tuning leg (34), a short leg
(32), and a feed leg (30). As is evident in FIG. 4
of Ollikainen, legs 32 [sic, 30] and 34 are not
Appeal 2009-001483
Application 10/945,234

3
“maximally distal” to each other (as claimed by the
Applicants). Because of this, claims 1 and 11 are
not anticipated by Ollikainen.

In Ollikainen, the tuning port 34 is located substantially maximally
proximal, as opposed to distal, to the feed port 30 along the radiating
element 20’ (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0067, 0074). Thus, we agree with Appellants’
argument that the claims on appeal are not anticipated by Ollikainen.
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 19 is reversed
because each and every limitation in the claims is not found either expressly
or inherently in the cited reference to Ollikainen. In re Crish, 393 F.3d
1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

MOTOROLA, INC.
1303 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD
IL01/3RD
SCHAUMBURG IL 60196