Ex Parte Yano

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2015

12310825 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KOJI YANO
____________

Appeal 2013-003730
Application 12/310,825
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–6. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6. An oral hearing was conducted on March 19, 2015.
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a slot array antenna.

Appeal 2013-003730
Application 12/310,825

2
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A slot array antenna comprising:
a radiation waveguide having a first conductor plane in
which a slot array is two-dimensionally arrayed, a second
conductor plane in parallel to the first conductor plane, and side
faces closing the first and second conductor planes, and having a
slot array in the first conductor plane so that a space surrounded
by the first and second conductor planes and the side faces is set
to be a waveguide space;
an introduction waveguide having a slot array for
introducing electromagnetic waves into the waveguide space; and
excitation means for exciting the electromagnetic waves in
the introduction waveguide, characterized in that:
each slot of the slot array formed in the introduction
waveguide is provided at every 1/2 wavelength or integer multiple
of 1/2 wavelength of the electromagnetic waves inside the
introduction waveguide in the direction propagating the
electromagnetic waves in the introduction waveguide, and
electromagnetic waves of a high-order mode are excited in the
radiation waveguide where a plurality of magnetic loops are
arranged in the direction of propagating the electromagnetic
waves in the introduction waveguide;
the slot array formed in the first conductor plane of the
radiation waveguide is formed such that primary wave polarizing
planes of radiated electric fields are oriented to the same direction
by coupling to the electromagnetic waves of the high-order mode,
and polarized wave components perpendicular to the primary
wave polarizing planes cancel out for each other; and
joining portions are provided for joining the first conductor
plane and the second conductor plane, the joining portions being
located at positions corresponding to nodes of guide-wall currents
determined by a mode of electromagnetic waves propagating in
the radiation waveguide.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Paine 3,599,216 Aug. 10, 1971

Appeal 2013-003730
Application 12/310,825

3
The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection:
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paine.
We reverse the stated rejection. Our reasoning follows.
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
non-patentability resides with the Examiner. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Paine is directed to a circularly polarized antenna of a planar array
type (slot antenna) that includes a multi-mode waveguide 17 (col. 2, ll. 40–
75, col. 7, l. 1 – col. 8, l. 26; Figs. 1, 2, 5, 14).
In applying Paine against Appellant’s claims 1 and 6, the only
independent claims on appeal, the Examiner seems to rely on the sidewalls
of waveguide 17 of Figure 1 of Paine, solid wall 70 of an alternative
embodiment described with respect to Figure 14 of Paine, and/or shunt slot
pins 26, 27 placed in line with virtual walls of the Figure 1 embodiment of
Pane as corresponding to the joining portions as required by appealed claims
1 and 6 (Final Action 3; Ans. 3–11).
For substantially the reasons argued by Appellant; however, the
Examiner has not carried the burden to establish that any of the identified
features of Paine, alone or in combination, as applied by the Examiner
correspond to the joining portions limitation of appealed claims 1 and 6,
particularly as to the required location of the joining portions as set forth in
claims 1 and 6 (App. Br. 4–10; Reply Br. 2–7). Moreover, we concur with
Appellant’s observation that the Examiner’s efforts at comparing various
drawing figures of Paine with certain drawing Figures of the subject
Application fall short of satisfying the Examiner’s obligation to articulate
Appeal 2013-003730
Application 12/310,825

4
how Paine teaches subject matter corresponding to that required by the
appealed claims, including the joining portions limitation of claims 1 and 6.
After all, Appellant’s claims should be the focus of the examination inquiry,
not drawing Figure 1 provided by Appellant that is directed to a prior art
arrangement or drawing Figure 6 provided by Appellant that is directed to an
embodiment that may not be embraced by the claimed subject matter (Reply
Br. 3-4; Ans. 2–3, 5–6).
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s stated obviousness
rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.

REVERSED
sl