Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2020

14577365 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2020)

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