Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 11, 2022

2021000495 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2022)

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. 15/987,991 05/24/2018 Nobuo IKEMOTO 36856.4226/ay 4218 54066 7590 02/11/2022 MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP 1800 ALEXANDER BELL DRIVE SUITE 200 RESTON, VA 20191 EXAMINER PHAM, QUANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/11/2022 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): JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM cbennett@kbiplaw.com uspto@kbiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NOBUO IKEMOTO ________________ Appeal 2021-000495 Application 15/987,991 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 2, 4, and 6-12, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 Claims 1, 3, and 5 are canceled. Appeal Br. 23-24 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000495 Application 15/987,991 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system used for short-distance communication between an RFID tag and an RFID reader or writer. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 2 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 2. An RFID tag attached to a surface of an article comprising: an RFIC chip disposed on a power feeding substrate; and a coil antenna provided in the power feeding substrate that includes a plurality of laminated dielectric layers; wherein the RFIC chip is provided closer to the surface of the article than the coil antenna; the coil antenna is defined by a three-dimensional-shaped coil antenna including a plurality of single loop coil conductors provided in or on different layers of the plurality of laminated dielectric layers; the plurality of single loop coil conductors includes a first opening and a second opening defined in the different layers; and the second opening is provided closer to the surface of the article than the first opening, and the first opening has greater size to the second opening. Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 2010/0182211 A1; July 22, 2010) and Liu (US 2005/0035924 A1; Feb. 17, 2005). Final Act. 5-8. Appeal 2021-000495 Application 15/987,991 3 Claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peter, Liu, and Phipps (US 2007/0146138 A1; June 28, 2007). Final Act. 8-16. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peter, Liu, Phipps, and Subramanian (US 2013/0069785 A1; Mar. 21, 2013). Final Act. 16. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Peters and Liu teaches or suggests: the coil antenna is defined by a three-dimensional-shaped coil antenna including a plurality of single loop coil conductors provided in or on different layers of the plurality of laminated dielectric layers; the plurality of single loop coil conductors includes a first opening and a second opening defined in the different layers; and the second opening is provided closer to the surface of the article than the first opening, and the first opening has greater size to the second opening. Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 3-8. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Peters does not teach or suggest the claimed “coil antenna.” Appeal Br. 12-19. In particular, Appellant argues Peters teaches two embodiments, Type I and Type II. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues the Type I embodiment, shown in Figures 1a, 1b, 3a, and 3b, teaches overlapping conductors stacked on top of each other. Id. at 12. Appellant argues the Type II embodiment teaches a parallel circuit where three conductors are arranged in a parallel relationship in the same conductive layer. Id. at 13. Appellant argues an ordinarily skilled artisan would not consider the Type II embodiment a “coil antenna” as Appeal 2021-000495 Application 15/987,991 4 claimed. Id. at 14. Appellant also argues that even if the Type II embodiment taught a “coil antenna,” it would not be arranged such that the openings on different layers were arranged as claimed. Id. at 15-18. The Examiner finds Peters teaches a coil antenna including a plurality of single loop coil conductors, relying on the Type II embodiment’s teachings relating to conductor structures 61, 62, and 63. See Ans. 3-4 (citing Peters Fig. 4). The Examiner finds Peters teaches that conductor structures 61, 62, and 63 may be provided in different layers, coupled together by suitable pass-through contactings. Id. at 4 (citing Peters ¶ 107). The Examiner finds that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try all possible arrangements of these conductors, such that the openings in different layers would be arranged as claimed. Id. at 6-8. Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred in relying on Peters’s Type II embodiment as teaching the claimed coil antenna structure. Peters teaches conductor structures 61, 62, and 63 are provided in the same electrically conductive layer. Peters ¶ 93. Peters teaches that “it is also possible that the conductor structures 61, 62 and 63 are not shaped in one and same electrically conductive layer but that those conductor structures are provided in different layers which are separated from each other by dielectric layers and are coupled together by suitable pass-through contactings.” Id. ¶ 107. However, Peters further explains that for the arrangement providing conductor structures 61, 62, and 63 in different layers, “[a]ttention is directed to the foregoing description for calculation of the capacitance of [the Type I embodiment] arrangement and the options afforded by the possibility of overlapping the conductor structures 61, 62 and 63.” Id. That Appeal 2021-000495 Application 15/987,991 5 is, Peters teaches that if conductor structures 61, 62, and 63 are provided in different layers, they are arranged in an overlapping manner akin to the Type I embodiment. Id. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Peters teaches arranging conductor structures 61, 62, and 63 in different layers while maintaining the different sized openings provided in the parallel arrangement of the Type II embodiment is speculative and not supported by Peters’s teachings. The Examiner’s obvious to try rationale relies on these findings and relies on further speculation without the factual findings required to support an obvious to try rationale. See Appeal Br. 19 (citing MPEP § 2143(I)(E)). Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently established that Peters teaches the claimed “coil antenna” and its related limitations. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 2. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 11 for the same reasons. Independent claim 4 stands rejected as unpatentable over Peters, Liu, and Phipps. Final Act. 9-12. Claim 4 recites limitations commensurate in scope with the disputed limitations of claim 2, and the Examiner relies on the same findings regarding Peters teaching these limitations. See id. The Examiner does not find Phipps teaches these limitations. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 4 for the same reasons. Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 stand rejected as unpatentable over Peters, Liu, and Phipps. Final Act. 12-16. Claim 8 stands rejected as unpatentable over Peters, Liu, Phipps, and Subramanian. Id. at 16. The Examiner does not find that Phipps or Subramanian cure the above-identified deficiency. See id. Appeal 2021-000495 Application 15/987,991 6 at 12-16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 6-10 and 12 for the same reasons. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2, 11 103 Peters, Liu 2, 11 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 103 Peters, Liu, Phipps 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 8 103 Peters, Liu, Phipps, Subramanian 8 Overall Outcome 2, 4, 6-12 REVERSED