Ex Parte LEE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 9, 2018

13468452 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/468,452 05/10/2012
124845 7590 07/11/2018
Russell Ng PLLC (LENOVO)
8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Austin, TX 78757
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SUNGGYOO LEE
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.
JP920110016-US-NP 8428
EXAMINER
ISLAM, HASAN Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2018 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):
s tephanie@russellnglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNGGYOO LEE
Appeal2017-009748
Application 13/468,452 1
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lenovo Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed May 10, 2012 (Spec.),
Appellant's Appeal Brief filed May 15, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's
Answer dated October 14, 2015 (Ans.), and Appellant's Reply Brief filed
October 28, 2015 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2017-009748
Application 13/468,452
The subject matter on appeal relates to an antenna (see, e.g., claims 1,
10, and 13). Appellant discloses that is desirable to place an antenna (e.g.,
for a portable computer) using signals in different frequency bands close
together in a small space but located so they do not interfere with one
another. Spec 1:21-31, 2:1-10. In view of this, Appellant discloses an
antenna that can be used in a limited space and has elements adapted to
different frequencies that avoid interference with one another. Id. 12:15-30,
13:1-3.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. An antenna comprising:
a ground plane; and
a circuit substrate connected to said ground plane,
wherein said circuit substrate includes
a switching circuit;
a ground element linearly extending on a surface
of said circuit substrate;
a first radiating element, which is adapted to a first
frequency band, includes a horizontal-portion pattern
extending substantially parallel to said ground element on
said surface of said circuit substrate, wherein said first
radiating element is connected to said ground element via
said switching circuit;
a driven element provided on said surface of said
circuit substrate between said ground element and said
horizontal-portion pattern to supply electromagnetic-
wave energy to said first radiating element; and
a second radiating element, which is adapted to a
second frequency band and a third frequency band that is
higher than said second frequency band, located on said
surface of said circuit substrate between said ground
element and said horizontal-portion pattern to provide
2
Appeal2017-009748
Application 13/468,452
contact with said driven element.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1-9 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Huynh3 in view ofNishio; 4
II. Claims 10 and 205 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Rasinger6 in view of Egorov; 7 and
III. Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Rasinger and Egorov, and
further in view of Nishio.
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection I
The Examiner finds Huynh discloses an antenna including a ground
element 112, a first radiating element 120 adapted to a first frequency band,
a driven element 146, and a second radiating element 144 adapted to a
second frequency band. Ans. 2 (referencing Huynh Fig. 2). The Examiner
finds Huynh does not disclose that the first radiating element is connected to
the ground element via a switching circuit, as recited in claim 1. Id. The
Examiner finds Nishio discloses a radiating element connected to a ground
element via a switching circuit and concludes it would have been obvious to
3 Huynh, US 7,432,860 B2, issued Oct. 7, 2008 ("Huynh").
4 Nishio, US 8,089,412 B2, issued Jan. 3, 2012 ("Nishio").
5 Although the Examiner does not include claim 20 in the statement of the
rejection at page 10 of the Examiner's Answer, a rejection for claim 20 is set
forth at page 12 of the Examiner's Answer.
6 Rasinger et al., US 5,365,246, issued Nov. 15, 1994 ("Rasinger").
7 Egorov, US 2007/0247373 Al, published Oct. 25, 2007 ("Egorov").
3
Appeal2017-009748
Application 13/468,452
modify Huynh' s antenna in view of Nishio to vary the operational
frequencies of the antenna. Id. at 2-3.
The Examiner finds Huynh does not disclose that the second radiating
element is adapted to both a second frequency band and a third frequency
band higher than the second. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds Huynh teaches
that adjustments in the length and/or relative orientation of antenna elements
may adjust their resonant frequencies, which the Examiner finds would also
change the bandwidth and/ or frequency band covered by an antenna. Id.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify the second
radiating element in view of Huynh's teachings so it is adapted to a third
frequency band higher than the second frequency band, which would
provide diverse frequencies to operate with. Id. at 3--4.
Appellant contends Huynh's second radiating element 144 does not
have two frequency bands and Huynh discloses the adjustment of a
frequency band, which is different from the addition of a frequency band.
Appeal Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Huynh discloses a multi-
band antenna 100 that transmits and receives signals in multiple frequency
bands. Huynh 2:23-24. The antenna 100 accomplishes this by including a
ground plane 110 having a ground connector 112, a first antenna element
120, a second antenna element 130, and a feed antenna element 140, wherein
the antenna elements operate in various frequency bands. Id. 2:64---67, 3:1-
8.
As the Examiner correctly finds at page 15 of the Examiner's Answer,
Huynh discloses the adjustment of a resonant frequency for an antenna
element by changing the path length and/or relative orientation of antenna
4
Appeal2017-009748
Application 13/468,452
elements and discloses the antenna is not limited to three frequency bands.
Huynh 2:60-63, 3: 12-35.
Moreover, Huynh demonstrates it was known to provide an antenna
element having more than one frequency band. Specifically, Huynh
discloses the feed antenna element 140 includes a first branch 142 and a
second branch 144, as shown in Figure 3C of Huynh. Id. 3:2--4. Huynh
discloses that "feed antenna element 140 resonates at a fundamental mode
frequency of900 MHz" (id. 5:12-13) and "[t]he second branch 144 of the
feed antenna element 140 resonates at a fundamental mode frequency of
1900 MHz" (id. 5:17-19).
Appellant further asserts the common end 146 of Huynh's antenna
feed 148 is not "a driven element provided on said surface of said circuit
substrate between said ground element and said horizontal-portion pattern to
supply electromagnetic-wave energy to said first radiating element," as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant argues the
common end 146 does not supply electromagnetic-wave energy to Huynh's
first antenna element 120. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. With regard to
Huynh's antenna feed 148, Appellant contends it is not provided on a
surface of a circuit substrate between a ground connector and a horizontal-
portion pattern of the first antenna element 120 and does not supply
electromagnetic-wave energy to the first antenna element 120, as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner initially finds Huynh's common end 146 functions as a
driven element (Ans. 2) but states this was a typographical error and
Huynh's antenna feed 148 is what functions as a driven element (id. at 15).
The Examiner finds the antenna feed 148 supplies electromagnetic-wave
5
Appeal2017-009748
Application 13/468,452
energy to the first antenna element 120. Id. at 15-16. We agree that Huynh
discloses its feed antenna element is connected to an antenna feed between
first and second antenna elements and that electromagnetic coupling is
produced by this arrangement. Huynh 1:36-42. Huynh's Figure 2 further
suggests that the antenna feed 148 is between the ground connector 112 and
a horizontal-portion pattern of the first antenna element 120. The Examiner
also finds the antenna feed 148 would be located on a surface of the
substrate depicted in Figure 6 of Huynh. Ans. 16. Appellant does not
identify a reversible error in this finding. In view of the above, a
preponderance of the evidence in the record supports the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not argue independent claim 13 or dependent claims
2-9 and 14--17 separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 6-9.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 13-17 under
§ 103(a) over Huynh and Nishio.
Rejection II
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rasinger in view of Egorov. Appellant presents separate
arguments for claims 10 and 20. Appeal Br. 9-10.
Claim 10
The Examiner finds Rasinger discloses an antenna including a ground
element 1, a passive inverted-L radiating element 19, a driven element 4, and
a radiating element 20. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds Rasinger does not
disclose that the radiating element 19 is connected to the ground element 1
6
Appeal2017-009748
Application 13/468,452
via a switching circuit, that the radiating element 20 is directly connected to
the ground element 1, or that the radiating element 20 is adapted to a third
frequency band in addition to a second frequency band, as recited in claim
10. Id. at 11.
The Examiner finds Egorov discloses a passive antenna element
connected to a ground element via a switching circuit and a radiating
element connected to the ground element. Id. The Examiner further finds
Egorov discloses an antenna element may be dimensioned to resonate in an
additional frequency band. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rasinger's antenna in
view of Egorov to obtain diverse modes of operation. Id. at 11-12.
Appellant argues Rasinger's feedline 4 is connected to wire angle 20
and does not supply energy to the wire angle 19, as recited in claim 10.
Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3--4. In response, the Examiner finds the wire
angle 19 would be adapted to a first frequency band and that although the
feedline 4 is not directly connected to the wire angle 19, the wire angle 19
would need to receive energy from the feedline 4 (e.g., via a passive
coupling) in order for the wire angle 19 to function as a transmitting and
receiving wire angle. Ans. 16-17. Rasinger describes its antenna as a
transmitting and receiving arrangement and discloses parasitic coupling
between antenna resonators. Rasinger 1:48-51, 2:5-7, 2:64-68, 3:1.
Therefore, the Examiner's findings are supported by a preponderance of
evidence. Appellant's arguments do not identify reversible error.
Appellant also contends Rasinger does not disclose its wire angle 20
is connected to a ground element or that its wire angle 19 is adapted to a
second frequency band and a third frequency band, as recited in claim 10.
7
Appeal2017-009748
Application 13/468,452
Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. These arguments do not address the Examiner's
rejection, which cites Egorov for the asserted limitations. As a result,
Appellant's arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 10.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 10 and recites "wherein passive
inverted-L radiating element, said driven element and said power-feeding
radiating element are located on a same plane."
Appellant argues Rasinger' s feedline 4 and wire angles 19 and 20 are
not located on a same plane, as recited in claim 20. Appeal Br. 1 O; Reply
Br. 4. In response, the Examiner reasonably explains that the feedline 4 and
wire angles 19 and 20 are all located on the same plane at the top of
Rasinger's housing 1, as shown in Rasinger's Figure 8. Thus, Appellant's
arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 20.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 20 under
§ 103(a) over Rasinger and Egorov.
Re} ection III
Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rasinger and Egorov and further in view of Nishio.
Appellant does not present separate arguments against this ground of
rejection. Appeal Br. 6-10. Therefore, we summarily affirm the Examiner's
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 overRasinger, Egorov, and
Nishio.
8
Appeal2017-009748
Application 13/468,452
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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
9