Ex Parte Cooke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2017

13454155 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2017)

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.
13/454,155 04/24/2012 Laurence H. Cooke 688970- 1US 1072
570 7590 04/13/2017
PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
ONE COMMERCE SQUARE
2005 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2200
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
TRIVISONNO, ANGELO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1759
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2017 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):
u sptomail @ panitchlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAURENCE H. COOKE
Appeal 2016-001223
Application 13/454,1551
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8—10, and 24—29 of
Application 13/454,155 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(March 17, 2015). Appellant seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
As the ’155 Application’s Specification explains, rectifiers for the
conversion of high frequency AC signals to direct-current have been known
1 NovaSolix, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001223
Application 13/454,155
for more than 20 years. Spec. 12. In particular, the combination of a
particular type of diode rectifier coupled to an antenna—called a Rectenna—
has also been known for decades. Id. Rectennas that can convert
microwaves to electricity can be as much as 40% efficient. Id. 14. Until
recently, however, the dimensions of the Rectenna limited the frequencies
that could be converted to electrical energy. Id. The ’155 Application
describes arrays of Rectennas configured to convert sunlight into electrical
energy and methods for the manufacture of such arrays. Spec. 11.
Claim 1—the only independent claim on appeal—is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
1. A solar antenna array configured to convert sunlight into
electrical power of the array comprising:
alternating substantially parallel power and ground lines
oriented in a first direction;
rows of substantially parallel antennas, oriented in a
second direction perpendicular to the first direction, wherein
ends of the antennas are aligned to the power and ground lines;
and
two types of metal-oxide-metal (MOM) diodes, wherein
respective ones of a first type of the two types of MOM diodes
are configured to connect respective ends of respective ones of
the antennas to the power lines and respective ones of a second
type of the two types of MOM diodes are configured to connect
respective ends of respective ones of the antennas to the ground
lines,
wherein the MOM diodes are coplanar with the antennas,
the power lines and the ground lines, in a plane formed by the
first direction and the second direction.
Appeal Br. 9.
2
Appeal 2016-001223
Application 13/454,155
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—3, 9, 10, 24, 25, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ito2 and Kotter.3
Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 5, 6, 8, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ito, Kotter, and Novack.4
Final Act. 8—9.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. Appellant only presents substantive arguments for
reversal of this rejection with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5—7.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 24, 25, 27, and 29—which ultimately depend
from claim 1—are alleged to be patentable based upon their dependence
from a patentable independent claim. Id. at 7. Accordingly, we select claim
1 as representative of the claims subject to this ground of rejection.
37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed
because the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellant argues that the combination of
references asserted by the Examiner does not describe or suggest the use of
“two types of metal-oxide-metal (MOM) diodes,” as recited in claim 1. Id.
at 5—7.
2 US 2010/0244656 Al, published September 30, 2010.
3 US 2013/0249771 Al, published September 26, 2013.
4 US 2011/0277805 Al, published November 17, 2011.
3
Appeal 2016-001223
Application 13/454,155
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner concluded that claim 1 ’s
requirement that the claimed solar antenna array include “two types” of
diodes should be construed as requiring that there are two sets of diodes each
of which has common traits or characteristics that distinguish the members
of the set as a group or class. See Answer 4. Based upon this claim
interpretation, the Examiner found that Ito describes an antenna array having
two types of diodes. In particular, the Examiner “asserts that all first diodes
242 are a first type of first connecting electrode diodes and that all second
diodes 244 are second type of second connecting electrode diodes.” Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by finding that Ito’s diodes
242 and 244 constitute two different types of diodes. Appeal Br. 5—7.
Appellant emphasizes that Ito describes these diodes as having identical
structures. Id. at 5 (citing Ito 172).
At bottom, Appellant’s argument is based upon the assumption that
the Examiner’s claim construction is erroneous. Although not expressly
stated, Appellant is construing claim 1 ’s requirement that the solar antenna
array have “two types” of diodes as requiring that the diodes have two
different structures. See id. at 5—6. Appellant, however, does not provide
any basis for the claim construction that is implicit in each of Appellant’s
arguments for reversal of the rejection of claim 1.
After reviewing the ’155 Application’s Specification, we conclude
that the Examiner erred by construing the claim term “two types” of diodes
too broadly. In particular, we conclude that the Examiner erred because
claim 1 itself defines the characteristics of each class of diode in question.
As recited in claim 1, the first type of diode is “configured to connect
respective ends of respective ones of the antennas to the power lines,” while
the second type of diode is “configured to connect respective ends of
4
Appeal 2016-001223
Application 13/454,155
respective ones of the antennas to the ground lines.” As support for the
portion of claim 1 reciting “two types of metal-oxide-metal (MOM) diodes,”
Appellant directs us to the Specification at paragraphs 40, 41, 48 and 50 and
Figs. 7 and 8. Appeal Br. 4. These portions of the Specification do not
support Appellant’s implicit construction that the “two types” of diodes must
have two different structures. On the contrary, Figure 7 depicts MOM diode
71 between antenna 53 and ground line 65 as having a structure similar to
MOM diode 72 between antenna 53 and power line 63.
We, however, determine that the Examiner’s error is harmless
because, in rejecting claim 1, the Examiner’s expressly found that Ito
describes two types of diodes, wherein the first type of diode is configured
to connect the end of an antenna to a power line and the second type of
diode is configured to connect the end of an antenna to a ground line.
Answer 4. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3,
9, 10, 24, 25, 27, and 29 as unpatentable over the combination of Ito and
Kotter.
Rejection 2. Appellant argues that Novack does not remedy the
alleged deficiencies of the combination of Ito and Kotter. Appeal Br. 7. As
discussed above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Thus, we
also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 26, and 28 as
unpatentable over the combination of Ito, Kotter, and Novack.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8—10, and 24—29 of the ’155 Application.
5
Appeal 2016-001223
Application 13/454,155
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6