Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 13, 202014577365 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/577,365 12/19/2014 Tae Gyu KIM 2191-17(2014-OPSE-6693) 4416 66547 7590 01/13/2020 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER SAFAIPOUR, BOBBAK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2020 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): pto@farrelliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAE GYU KIM, JIN KYU BANG, HAE YEON KIM, CHONG O YOON, and DONG HWAN KIM Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges. LEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention relates to an antenna device and is claimed in three distinct ways, through independent claims 1, 16, and 20, reproduced below: 1. An antenna device for an electronic device for wireless communication, comprising: an antenna area connected to a feeding line and a ground line, wherein the antenna area is configured to transmit/receive a signal of a first frequency band; and a branching feeding pattern branching from the feeding line and connected to one side of the antenna area, wherein the branching feeding pattern is configured to enable the antenna area to transmit/receive a signal of a second frequency band. 16. An electronic device for wireless communication, comprising: a processor; and a communication module comprising an antenna device, wherein the antenna device comprises an antenna area configured to transmit/receive a signal of a first frequency band and a radiator configured to transmit/receive a signal of a second frequency band, wherein the radiator is connected to the antenna via a feeding switch structure, and wherein the processor is configured to control the communication module to transmit/receive at least one of the signal of the first frequency band and the signal of the second frequency band. 20. An antenna device for an electronic device for wireless communication, comprising: Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 3 an antenna area connected to a feeding line and a ground line, wherein the antenna area is configured to transmit/receive a signal of a first frequency band; and a radiator connected to the antenna area via a feeding switch structure, wherein the radiator is configured to transmit/receive a signal of a second frequency band. Claims 1 and 20 each require, within the antenna device, “an antenna area connected to a feeding line and a ground line.” Claim 16 also requires an antenna area within an antenna device, but claim 16 does not require the antenna area to be connected to both a feeding line and a ground line. According to all three claims 1, 16, and 20, the antenna area is configured to transmit/receive a signal of a first frequency band. Claims 16 and 20 each require, within the antenna device, a radiator connected to the antenna area via a feeding switch structure.2 According to both claims 16 and 20, the radiator is configured to transmit/receive a signal of a second frequency band. Claim 16 further requires a processor controlling a communication module including the antenna device, to transmit/receive at least one of the first frequency band signal and the second frequency band signal. 2 Although claim 16 actually recites that “the radiator is connected to the antenna,” rather than that the radiator is connected to the “antenna area,” the term “antenna,” in the specific context of claim 16, can only refer to the antenna area which, like the radiator, is comprised within the antenna device. It cannot refer to the “antenna device,” because the radiator is contained within the antenna device and it would make little sense, in that environment, to state that the radiator is connected to the antenna device. Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 4 REFERENCES3 Lee US Pat. No. 9,219,305 B2 Dec. 22, 2015 (filed Feb. 7, 2013) Tseng US Pat. Pub. 2002/0089453 A1 July 11, 2002 Pros US Pat. Pub. 2007/0046548 A1 Mar. 1, 2007 Pan US Pat. Pub. 2008/0150830 A1 June 26, 2008 Wang US Pat. Pub. 2010/0103069 A1 Apr. 29, 2010 Choi US Pat. Pub. 2012/0081240 A1 Apr. 5, 2012 Jang US Pat. Pub. 2013/0249744 A1 Sept. 26, 2013 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng and “Admitted Prior Art of Tseng.” Final Act. 4. Claim 3 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Choi. Id. at 7. Claim 4 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Pan. Id. at 7. Claims 5, 6, and 10 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Lee. Id. at 8. 3 The Examiner also refers to “Admitted Prior Art of Tseng” and “AAPA of Tseng” as though it is Applicant’s admitted prior art and separate from Tseng. Final Act. 4, 7–10. However, what is referred to is the background discussion in Tseng and a part of the Tseng disclosure. It is not Applicant’s own admitted prior art. We regard it simply as Tseng’s disclosure. There is no need to list it separately from Tseng. Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 5 Claim 9 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Jang. Id. at 9. Claim 12 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “Admitted Prior Art of Tseng,” and Pros. Id. at 10. Claim 13 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Wang. Id. at 10. Claims 16–20 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng and Pan. Id. at 11. OPINION A. The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 as Obvious over Tseng and “Admitted Prior Art of Tseng” 1. Overview of Tseng Figure 3 of Tseng is reproduced below: Figure 3 shows an embodiment of Tseng’s antenna device. Tseng ¶ 16. Antenna 300 comprises first radiating element 302, second radiating element 304, and feed radiating element 306. Id. ¶ 23. Tseng describes: The first radiating element 302 is shaped as an extended bent wire to function as an antenna element for a first frequency band. It is used to control the characteristics of the first frequency band. The second radiating element 304 functions as an antenna element for a second frequency band. It is used to control the characteristics of the second frequency band. Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 6 Id. Feed radiating element 306 has two ends, one of which is used as signal feed point 308 so that the first frequency signal and the second frequency signal can share the same signal feed point 308. Id. ¶ 24. “The other end 310 electrically connects the first radiating element 302 to the second radiating element 304 and forms a top loaded structure [that] changes the antenna’s extension direction.” Id. 2. Claim 1 For the recited antenna area of claim 1, which is connected to a feeding line and a ground line and configured to transmit/receive a signal of a first frequency band, the Examiner determines that “[a]s shown in FIG. 3 [of Tseng], the antenna 300 comprises a first radiating element 302, a second radiating element 304, and a feed radiating element 306. The first radiating element 302 is shaped as an extended bent wire to function as an antenna element for a first frequency band.” Final Act. 5. For the recited branching feeding pattern of claim 1, which branches from the feeding line and is connected to one side of the antenna area, the Examiner determines that “[t]he second radiating element 304 functions as an antenna element for a second frequency band. It is used to control the characteristics of the second frequency band.” Id. These articulations by the Examiner fail to convey, adequately, what the Examiner identifies in Tseng as the claimed “antenna area,” the claimed “feeding line,” and the claimed “branching feeding pattern.” However, with regard to what in Tseng constitutes the “antenna area,” the “feeding line,” and the “branching feeding pattern,” the Examiner makes the necessary clarification in the Examiner’s Answer. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner states the following: “It is immediately clear to one of ordinary Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 7 skill in the art that ‘antenna area’ is a very broad phrase. Any section or portion of the antenna structure or the antenna itself may reasonably be interpreted as the claimed ‘antenna area’ of the present application.” Ans. 3. Specifically, the Examiner identifies in the Examiner’s Answer Tseng’s entire antenna 300 as what the Examiner regards as the claimed “antenna area” (Ans. 3, 5); the Examiner identifies Tseng’s feed radiating element 306 as the claimed “feeding line” (Ans. 3); and the Examiner identifies Tseng’s first radiating element 302 as the claimed “branching feeding pattern” (Ans. 4, 5). These articulations by the Examiner of what in Tseng constitutes the claimed “antenna area,” i.e., the entirety of antenna 300, what in Tseng constitutes the claimed “feeding line,” i.e., feed radiating element 306, and what in Tseng constitutes the claimed branching feeding pattern, i.e., first radiating element 302, are problematic and render the rejection improper, as explained below. Claim 1 recites an antenna device comprising (1) an antenna area connected to a feeding line and a ground line, and (2) a branching feeding pattern branching from the feeding line and connected to one side of the antenna area. Thus, both the antenna area and the branching feeding pattern are components within the antenna device, separate from but connected to each other. We reproduce Figure 3 of Tseng to facilitate an understanding of the Examiner’s determinations: Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 8 Figure 3 shows an embodiment of Tseng’s antenna device. Tseng ¶ 16. Based on the Examiner’s determination, antenna 300 is the claimed antenna area, feed radiating element 306 is the claimed feeding line, and first radiating element 302 is the claimed branching feeding pattern. Ans. 3–5. That determination is untenable in the context of claim 1, because it would make branching feeding pattern 302 an internal component of antenna area 300, when it, according to claim 1, is external and connected to one side of the antenna area. According to claim 1, the antenna area and the branching feeding pattern are separate components within the antenna device and are connected to each other. The Examiner’s determinations do not satisfy that requirement. According to the Examiner’s determination, branching feeding pattern 302 is contained within antenna area 300. It is unreasonable to regard an element and its own internal component to be connected to each other. That is contrary to plain and ordinary usage of the English language, and should not be an adopted position unless something in the Specification reasonably conveys that understanding. Here, nothing in the Specification of Application 14/577,365 supports it. For instance, Figure 2 of the Specification is reproduced below: Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 9 Figure 2 illustrates an embodiment of the invention. Spec. ¶ 19. The Specification describes that antenna device 200 includes antenna area 230, feeding line 212A, and branching feeding line 212B connected to one side of antenna area 230. Spec. ¶¶ 35–36. Branching feeding line 212B is not a component part of antenna area 230. Additionally, the Examiner states that “[i]t is also obvious from Figure 3 [of Tseng] that the first radiating element 302 [branching feeding pattern] is connected to one side of the antenna area (i.e. antenna [300]).” Ans. 5. We disagree. That conclusion is not supported by the cited evidence. Instead, Figure 3 of Tseng (reproduced on the previous page) and its accompanying description, noted above, indicate that first radiating element 302 is a component part within antenna device 300. In that context it cannot reasonably be determined that first radiating element 302 is “connected to” one side of antenna device 300, as is required by claim 1. Finally, on this record, it also is unreasonable to regard Tseng’s radiating element 302 as a branching “feeding pattern,” because the Examiner has not identified anything fed via that element or explained how Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 10 first radiating element 302 acts as a feeding line to anything. Indeed, according to Tseng, radiating element 302 is itself the radiating antenna element for a first frequency band. Tseng ¶ 23. For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Tseng and “Admitted Prior Art of Tseng” cannot be sustained. 3. Claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 Each of claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 depends directly from independent claim 1, and thus incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1. The deficiency of the Examiner’s analysis for claim 1, discussed above, carries through to each of dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng and “Admitted Prior Art of Tseng.” B. The rejection of Claim 3 as Obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Choi Claim 3 depends indirectly from claim 1 and thus incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1. The deficiency of the Examiner’s analysis for claim 1 carries through to claim 3. The Examiner’s application of Choi does not relate to or cure that deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Choi. C. The Rejection of Claim 4 as Obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Pan Claim 4 depends indirectly from claim 1 and thus incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1. The deficiency of the Examiner’s analysis for claim 1 carries through to claim 4. The Examiner’s application of Pan does not relate to or cure that deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 11 rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Pan. D. The Rejection of Claims 5, 6, and 10 as Obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Lee Claims 5, 6, and 10 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, and thus incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1. The deficiency of the Examiner’s analysis for claim 1 carries through to each of claims 5, 6, and 10. The Examiner’s application of Lee does not relate to or cure that deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Lee. E. The Rejection of Claim 9 as Obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Jang Claim 9 depends directly from claim 1 and thus incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1. The deficiency of the Examiner’s analysis for claim 1 carries through to claim 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Jang. F. The Rejection of Claim 12 as Obvious over Tseng, “Admitted Prior Art of Tseng,” and Pros Claim 12 depends directly from claim 1 and thus incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1. The deficiency of the Examiner’s analysis for claim 1 carries through to claim 12. The Examiner’s application of Pros does not relate to or cure that deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “Admitted Prior Art of Tseng,” and Pros. G. The Rejection of Claim 13 as Obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Wang Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 12 Claim 13 depends directly from claim 1 and thus incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1. The deficiency of the Examiner’s analysis for claim 1 carries through to claim 13. The Examiner’s application of Wang does not relate to or cure that deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Wang. H. The Rejection of Claims 16–20 as Obvious over Tseng and Pan As noted above, claim 16 recites an antenna device comprising an antenna area and a radiator connected to the antenna area. The same is true for claim 20. For the “antenna area” limitation, and similar to what the Examiner inadequately determined in the Final Office Action with respect to the “antenna area” of claim 1, the Examiner states the following: “As shown in Figure 3, the antenna 300 [of Tseng] comprises a first radiating element 302, a second radiating element 304, and a feed radiating element 306. The first radiating element 302 is shaped as an extended bent wire to function as an antenna element for a first frequency band.” Final Act. 11. As is the case with claim 1, the Examiner failed to identify, adequately, what he regards as the “antenna area” of claims 16 and 20. The Examiner identifies second radiating element 304 as the claimed “radiator.” Id. We have no basis to assume that the Examiner intended first radiating element 302 as the “antenna area,” particularly in light of the Examiner’s clarification that he regards the entire antenna, i.e., antenna device 300, as meeting the “antenna area” element of claim 1 (Ans. 3, 5), and first radiating element 302 as meeting the “branching feeding pattern” of claim 1 (Ans. 4, 5). Further, unlike the case of claim 1, the Examiner does not, in the Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 13 Examiner’s Answer, clarify what he regards as the “antenna area” in the context of claims 16 and 20. Even if we assume that the Examiner’s clarification with respect to claim 1 also applies to claims 16 and 20, such that the Examiner regards the entire antenna, i.e., antenna device 300, as the “antenna area” element, that determination is untenable in the context of claims 16 and 20, because it would make the radiator an internal component of antenna area 300, when it, according to claims 16 and 20, is external and connected to the antenna area. According to claims 16 and 20, the antenna area and the radiator are separate components within the antenna device and are connected to each other. The Examiner’s determination does not satisfy that requirement. An antenna area and a separate radiator connected to the antenna area would not be met by the Examiner’s application of Tseng, because based on the Examiner’s determination, the radiator would be contained within the antenna area. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng and Pan. Claims 17–19 each depend from claim 16 and thus include all the limitations of claim 16. The deficiency of the Examiner’s analysis for claim 16 carries through to each of claims 17–19. The Examiner’s application of Pan does not relate to or cure that deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tseng and Pan. Appeal 2019-001077 Application 14/577,365 14 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15 103 Tseng and “Admitted Prior Art of Tseng” 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15 3 103 Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Choi 3 4 103 Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Pan 4 5, 6, 10 103 Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Lee 5, 6, 10 9 103 Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Jang 9 12 103 Tseng, “Admitted Prior Art of Tseng,” and Pros 12 13 103 Tseng, “AAPA of Tseng,” and Wang 13 16–20 103 Tseng and Pan 16–20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation