Ex Parte Özden

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2017

13878642 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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.
13/878,642 08/02/2013 Sinasi Ozden GNR P1922 PCT US 7206
86107 7590 08/31/2017
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (GN Resound)
2160 Lundy Avenue
Suite 230
San Jose, CA 95131
EXAMINER
ETESAM, AMIR HOSSEIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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):
docketing@viplawgroup.com
ev@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SINASI OZDEN
Appeal 2017-005534
Application 13/878,6421
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—5, 7—10, and 12—52, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 Appellant identifies GN ReSound A/S as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Apr. 10, 2013, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed Oct. 23, 2015, the Advisory
Action (“Advisory Act.”) mailed Mar. 22, 2016, the Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.”) filed July 22, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Dec. 15,
2016, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Feb. 15, 2017.
Appeal 2017-005534
Application 13/878,642
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to an antenna device configured to be used at
or in proximity to a user body, the antenna device including a conducting
element extending over a length greater than or equal to 1/16 of a
wavelength in a direction substantially orthogonal to a surface of the user.
(Spec. 12, Title, and Abstract.)
Claims 1, 30, and 35 are independent. Claims 1 and 30, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An antenna device configured to be used with a hearing
aid, the antenna device comprising:
an antenna structure having a conducting element,
wherein the antenna structure is configured so that a current is
induced in at least the conducting element during operation, the
conducting element extending over a length greater than or
equal to 1/16 of a wavelength and less than a A of the
wavelength in a first direction, wherein the antenna structure is
configured to emit an electromagnetic field that propagates in a
direction substantially orthogonal to the conducting element;
and
a housing accommodating the antenna structure, wherein
the housing has a dimension in the first direction that is less
than a A of the wavelength;
wherein the antenna structure comprises a monopole
antenna.
30. A method performed by an antenna device, comprising:
receiving a signal; and
in response to the signal, emitting an electromagnetic field
so that the electromagnetic field propagates in a direction having
a major directional vector that corresponds with a surface of a
user using the antenna device;
wherein the antenna device is configured for worn by the
2
Appeal 2017-005534
Application 13/878,642
user in a specific manner so that when the user wears the antenna
device in the specific manner, the antenna device is oriented to
emit the electromagnetic field propagating in the direction
having the major directional vector that corresponds with the
surface of the user.
(App. Br. 12, 16 (Claims App’x).)
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES3
(1) Claims 1—5, 7—11,4 17—28, 51, and 52 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Zhang et al. (US 2005/0099341 Al, published
May 12, 2005,“Zhang”), Gareth A. Conway et al., Antennas for Over-Body-
Surface Communication at 2.45 GHz, Ieee Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation, Vol. 57, 4, 844—55 (2009) (“Conway”), and Takei et al.
(US 2006/0197706 Al, published Sept. 7, 2006, “Takei”). (Final Act. 2-7.)
(2) Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Zhang, Conway, Takei, and Zhang (US
2007/0080889 Al, published Apr. 12, 2007, “Zhang II”). (Final Act. 7—8.)
(3) Claims 30, 31, 34, 35, 37—39, and 42-44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Zhang and Takei. (Final Act. 9-11.)
(4) Claims 32, 33, 36, 40, 41, 45, and 46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Zhang, Takei, and Conway. (Final Act. 11—13.)
3 Claims 14 and 49 are also rejected (see Final Act. 1, Office Action
Summary; see also Advisory Act. 1) but not listed by the Examiner under
the individual § 103(a) rejections. Further discussion of claims 14 and 49 is
presented in our analysis below.
4 Appellant’s after-final Amendment dated Feb. 24, 2016, incorporating the
features of claim 11 into claim 1 and cancelling claim 11, was entered via
the Advisory Action dated Mar. 22, 2016.
3
Appeal 2017-005534
Application 13/878,642
(5) Claims 47, 48, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Zhang, Takei, Conway, and Zhang II. (Final Act. 13—14.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—5, 7—10, 12, 13, 15—29, 51, and 52
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combined
teachings of Zhang, Takei, and Conway teach an antenna structure that
comprises a monopole antenna, as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 6—8; see
also Reply Br. 1 4.) Specifically, Appellant argues the combination of
Conway and Zhang is improper, as changing Zhang’s loop antenna into a
monopole antenna (of Conway) would change Zhang’s principle of
operation and render Zhang inoperable for its intended purpose. (App. Br.
6—7.) Appellant also argues there is no reasonable basis to replace Zhang’s
loop antenna with Conway’s monopole antenna because “loop antenna and
monopole antenna are two distinct types of antenna that have significant
different characteristics, and operate based on different technical principles”;
and “a loop antenna can be more optimum in its reception characteristic
compared to a monopole antenna, depending on how the antenna is
configured.” (App. Br. 6, 8; see also Reply Br. 1—2.) We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own.
Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that (1) Conway discloses a
monopole antenna for over body surface communication, and (2) Zhang
discloses an electrically small loop antenna for wireless hearing aids and
other body worn devices. (Ans. 2; Advisory Act. 2 (citing Conway Fig. 2);
Final Act. 3 (citing Zhang Figs. 2—6 and 10; Conway 845); see also Zhang
H 14—16.) Further, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
4
Appeal 2017-005534
Application 13/878,642
well within the level of the ordinary skill of an artisan to include a monopole
antenna in Zhang’s body worn antenna device. (Ans. 2; Advisory Act. 2.)
We find incorporating a monopole antenna of Conway into Zhang’s body
worn antenna device to be a combination of known elements according to a
known method to yield a predictable result. “The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the
combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the answer depends on
“whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 417.
Further, we note that claim 1 fails to positively recite any particular
relationship between the monopole antenna, and the conducting element in
the antenna structure. Claim 1 merely recites “the antenna structure
comprises a monopole antenna” and does not require the entire antenna
structure or the conducting element to be a monopole antenna. Moreover,
Appellant’s Specification describes an embodiment of an “antenna structure
comprising the conducting element and the parasitic antenna elements,” and
“the parasitic antenna element may form a patch geometry, ... a monopole
geometry, a meander line geometry, etc. or any combination thereof.”
(Spec. H41—43 (emphases added).) As such, an individual linear portion
(e.g., second antenna portion 14) of Zhang’s loop would also produce the
effects of a monopole antenna in a larger antenna structure (e.g., in Zhang’s
loop antenna). (See Zhang 117, Figs 1, 10.)
5
Appeal 2017-005534
Application 13/878,642
Thus, a monopole antenna in Zhang’s loop antenna does not change
Zhang’s principle of operation or render Zhang inoperable, as advocated by
Appellant. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2—3.)
Appellant’s challenge further relies on the reasoning that “loop
antenna and monopole antenna are two distinct types of antenna that have
significant different characteristics, and operate based on different technical
principles” and therefore “the loop antenna of Zhang cannot simply be
replaced with a monopole antenna.” (App. Br. 6, 7.) We are not persuaded
because Appellant’s argument is incorrectly premised on replacing Zhang’s
entire loop antenna with Conway’s monopole antenna. (See App Br. 7; see
also Reply Br. 4.) As discussed supra, claim 1 does not require the antenna
structure to be the monopole antenna. Furthermore, as recognized by the
Examiner, Conway shows it is known in the prior art to use patch and
monopole antenna geometries for over body surface communication, and
“depending on the specific antenna being used, an ordinary skilled in the art
understands that the circuitry needs to be modified for the antenna to be
functional.” (Ans. 2; see also Conway 845—846, Fig. 2 (comparing
performance of low profile higher mode microstrip patch (HMMP A),
fundamental mode microstrip patch (MPA-F), microstrip patch with
shortening wall (MPA-S), and monopole antenna geometries).)
Appellant further asserts “the intended purpose of the loop antenna of
Zhang[, which] is to provide a current that is approximately constant all the
way around the loop” is rendered inoperable by “a monopole antenna,
[whose] current has a higher value near a feed point, and decreases to a very
low value (e.g., zero) at the open end of the monopole antenna.” (App. Br.
7.) We are not persuaded of Examiner error because these arguments are
6
Appeal 2017-005534
Application 13/878,642
speculative, i.e., not supported by Zhang’s description of its intended goals.
(See Zhang || 2 (explaining the loop antenna is “for use in an ultra-low
power wireless hearing aid system, but which may also have general
applications in the field of wireless communication devices”), 14 (explaining
the loop antenna “may enable hearing aids or other communication devices
to have short-range wireless transceiver functions” and “may enable high
sensitivity in a very small space and thus is well suited for installation in the
irregular shape of a hearing aid shell”).)
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, dependent claims 2—5, 7—10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18—29, 51,
and 52 argued for their dependency from claim 1, and dependent claim 17
for which no separate arguments are provided. (App. Br. 6—8.)
Claims 3 0—48 and 50
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Zhang and Takei teaches or suggests
the antenna device is configured for worn by the user in a
specific manner so that when the user wears the antenna device
in the specific manner, the antenna device is oriented to emit
the electromagnetic field propagating in the direction having the
major directional vector that corresponds with the surface of the
user,
as recited in independent claim 30.5 (App. Br. 8.)
The Examiner finds Zhang discloses “different locations for [its]
antenna . . . suggesting that the location of the antenna could be modified”
and the orientation of the antenna can be modified “to have [the] major
5 Upon any further prosecution, Appellant should amend the term “for
worn” in claim 30, to for example, “to be worn” or “for wear,” as the term
“for worn” is nonsensical.
7
Appeal 2017-005534
Application 13/878,642
vector for specific directivities for various specific applications such as
directing signal toward a particular transc[ei]ver.” (Ans. 3 (citing Zhang
Figs. 2 and 8); Advisory Act. 2; see also Final Act. 9 (citing Zhang Fig. 4).)
The Examiner reasons such modifications to the antenna’s location and
orientation “would be obvious to [one] ordinary skilled in the art to achieve
an optimal communication result based on the specific application of the
device,” and particularly, “to achieve signals having orthogonal major access
to the user’s skin ... to achieve optimal communication results such as low
interference or maximum gain depending on the specific application [of] the
hearing device [with the antenna] ... or the access point location the device
is trying to wirelessly communicate to.” (Ans. 3.)
Appellant asserts “Zhang actually teaches a loop antenna which has a
certain fixed orientation with respect to the hearing device housing. . . .
[t]hus, the loop antenna of Zhang cannot be ‘in any orientation’” as the
rejection asserts. (App. Br. 9 (citing Zhang Figs 2 and 7).) Appellant argues
that, in contrast to Zhang, “claim 30 indicates that the antenna device is
configured for worn in a specific manner (not ‘in any orientation’)” and “it is
the configuration of the antenna device (i.e., not an arbitrary selection by a
user) that dictates the orientation of the antenna device.” (App. Br. 9; Reply
Br. 5.)
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant’s arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. (Ans. 3.) For additional
emphasis, we note Appellant’s claim 30 does not require a “configuration of
the antenna device (i.e., not an arbitrary selection by a user)” to “dictate^
the orientation of the antenna device,” as advocated by Appellant. (See App.
8
Appeal 2017-005534
Application 13/878,642
Br. 9.) As the Examiner finds, claim 30 merely recites “the antenna device
is configured for worn by the user in a specific manner,” thus “simply
disclosing] that the antenna is being worn in a specific orientation.” (Ans.
3.) Claim 30 also does not exclude “an arbitrary selection [of the antenna’s
orientation] by a user.” (See App. Br. 9.) Thus, Appellant’s arguments are
not commensurate with the scope of claim 30.
In view of the broadly recited limitations in claim 30, we agree with
the Examiner that Zhang suggests an antenna device emitting an
electromagnetic field propagating in the direction having the major
directional vector that corresponds with the surface of the user, as claimed.
(Final Act. 9; Ans. 3.) In particular, Zhang discloses the tested “antenna was
omni-directional,” thereby suggesting the antenna’s emitted electromagnetic
field propagates in all directions including a “direction having the major
directional vector that corresponds with the surface of the user [wearing the
antenna],” as recited in claim 30. (See Zhang 118.)
Appellant additionally argues that “one skilled in the art certainly
cannot reach the specifically claimed direction by simply trying to modify
the orientation of [Zhang’s] antenna” that “is configured to operate at ‘900
MHz’. . . . [which] indicates that the signals from the antenna of Zhang are
transmitted through the head of the user.” (App. Br. 9—10 (citing Zhang
124); Reply Br. 7.) Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Zhang’s
antenna signals are not restricted to a direction through the head of the user.
Rather, Zhang’s antenna is omni-directional, as discussed supra. Moreover,
Zhang teaches the antenna may be oriented according to irregular shapes of
“an external surface of the shell of a BTE hearing aid or within the hearing
aid shell,” or shapes of “any miniature wireless system requiring the
9
Appeal 2017-005534
Application 13/878,642
reception and transmission of audio or bi-directional data transfer at
extremely low power consumption” such as “hearing aids, assistive listening
devices, wireless headsets, ear-buds, body worn control, sensor, and
communication devices.” (See Zhang || 14—16.) Thus, one skilled in the art
would understand that the orientation (with respect to the user) of Zhang’s
antenna changes with the orientation and the type of miniature wireless
system incorporating the antenna. (Ans. 3.)
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 30 and the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 35
on the same basis as claim 30 (see App. Br. 10). For the same reasons, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 31—34, 36-48
and 50 argued for their dependency from claims 30 and 35. (App. Br. 8, 10-
11.)
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims, which fall for the reasons stated with respect to the claims from
which they depend. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—10, and
12-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10