THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2020006600 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2021)

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.
15/572,308 11/07/2017 STEPHEN JOHN BOYES 041577-1066864 2691
23370 7590 07/27/2021
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP - East Coast
MAILSTOP: IP DOCKETING - 22
1100 PEACHTREE STREET
SUITE 2800
ATLANTA, GA 30309
EXAMINER
ALKASSIM JR, AB SALAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN JOHN BOYES
Appeal 2020-006600
Application 15/572,308
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 and 16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed November 7, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed
November 14, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed June 5, 2020 (“Appeal
Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 31, 2020 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief
filed September 22, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Secretary of
State for Defense. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006600
Application 15/572,308

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to a body-wearable antenna
system capable of providing improved radiation efficiency in an
omnidirectional manner. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix, 15):
1. A body-wearable antenna system capable of operating
in transmit and receive, comprising at least two directional
antenna elements arranged to be mountable in a substantially
equi-spaced distributed array around a user’s body to direct
radiation only away from the user’s body, wherein the antenna
system is configured, in use, such that the directional antenna
elements operate in phase with each other to deliver a
combined, higher gain, omnidirectional performance radiating
away from the user’s body, compared to one or more
conventional bodyworn omnidirectional antennas.
Claim 16 is also independent and recites a body-wearable antenna
system. Id. at 16–17.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Adams et al. US 7,002,526 B1 February 21, 2006
Anguera Pros et al. (“Anguera
Pros”)
US 2008/0231521 A1 September 25, 2008
Vummidi Murali et al.
(“Vummidi Murali”)
US 2014/0043190 A1 February 13, 2014
Rhoads et al. (“Rhoads”) US 2014/0159959 A1 June 12, 2014
Lyu et al. (“Lyu”) US 2015/0325915 A1 November 12, 2015
Burnside US 9,213,874 B2 December 15, 2015
Appeal 2020-006600
Application 15/572,308

3

REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5, 8–11, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Adams and Salonen.
Final Act. 2–8.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Adams, Salonen, and Anguera Pros. Final
Act. 8.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Adams, Salonen, and Lyu. Final Act. 8–9.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Adams, Salonen, Burnside, and Vummidi
Murali. Final Act. 9–10.
5. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Adams, Salonen, and Rhoads. Final Act.
10–12.
6. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Adams, Salonen, and Burnside. Final
Act. 12.
OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the
claims subject to this rejection or the claims subject to Rejections 2–6. See
Pekka Salonen et al, A Small Planar Inverted-F Antenna for Wearable
Applications, IEEE Digest of Papers—Third International Symposium of
Wearable Computers 1999, 95–100 (October 18–19, 1999) (“Salonen”)
Appeal 2020-006600
Application 15/572,308

4
Appeal Br. 8–13. We select claim 1 as representative for disposition of this
rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner found Adams discloses a body-wearable antenna
system including at least two antenna elements, where the antenna system is
configured such that the antenna elements operate in phase with each other
and the respective radiation patterns combine to deliver a higher gain,
omnidirectional performance radiating away from the user’s body. Final
Act. 2–3. The Examiner found Adams does not disclose at least two antenna
elements are directional antenna elements having respective directional
radiation patterns to direct radiation only away from the user’s body.
Id. at 3.
The Examiner found Salonen discloses a body-wearable antenna
system comprising a directional antenna element having a directional
radiation pattern to direct radiation only away from the user’s body. Final
Act. 3.
The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have
replaced the at least two antenna elements of Adams with the directional
antenna elements disclosed in Salonen, because Salonen discloses planar
type antennas can be constructed smaller than comparable patch antennas,
increase the directivity and gain of the antenna system, and reduce the
amount of radiation being directed to the user of the body-wearable antenna
system. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner determined this would also allow the
body-wearable antenna system to communicate in the Global System for
Mobile Communications (GSM) or Personal Communication Service (PCS)
Appeal 2020-006600
Application 15/572,308

5
applications, the dominant digital access technique in mobile
communications in Europe and the USA. Id. at 4.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that implementing Salonen’s antenna to replace
Adams’ UHF antennas would not achieve an omnidirectional effect without
exercising further significant inventive effort. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant
contends also that the Examiner’s rationale lacks sufficient rational
underpinnings because Adams uses broadband UHF antennas, and Salonen
discloses antennas designed to avoid broadband communication in order to
operate in a narrow frequency band. Id. at 10–12. Appellant argues a
person having ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable
expectation of success in combining Salonen with Adams because the dual-
band antenna of Salonen would not accomplish similar goals of the
broadband antenna in Adams. Id. at 12–13.

Issue
Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Adams
and Salonen renders claim 1 obvious?

Discussion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Although Appellant
argues that incorporating Salonen’s planar inverted-F antenna (PIFA) would
not achieve an omnidirectional effect without exercising further effort due to
different mutual coupling effects, individual radiations patterns, and
differences in the way individual radiation patterns interact when provided
Appeal 2020-006600
Application 15/572,308

6
as an array around the body of the user, Appellant’s Specification and
evidence3 indicates that such effort is no more than optimizing the location
and parameters of the antenna elements. Spec. 5; Boyes Decl. ¶ 28; Appeal
Br. 9. Thus, notwithstanding Appellant’s general characterization of any
further effort in combining Adams and Salonen to reach the claims as
“inventive,” and the statements in the Boyes Declaration that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have conceived of the invention based on the
combination of Adams and Salonen due to certain factors that would need to
be optimized (Boyes Decl. ¶¶ 22, 28), Appellant does not sufficiently
explain why such effort would have been beyond the level of skill of the
ordinary skilled artisan given what is known about PIFAs as evidenced by
the Salonen and the instant Specification.4 See Ans. 3–4; KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
In addition, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that
Adams does not disclose omnidirectional coverage around the body due to
Adams’ disclosure of gaps in frequency coverage. Appeal Br. 9–10. As the
Examiner points out, the portion of Adams cited by Appellant (col. 5, l. 55–
col. 6, l. 2) is a different embodiment employing quadraplexer (see Adams
Fig. 7) than the embodiment relied upon by the Examiner. Ans. 5, citing
Adams Fig. 6. Moreover, as the Examiner points out, the combination of
Adams and Salonen would result in a PIFA on the front and the back of the

3 Declaration of Stephen John Boyes dated February 27, 2020 (hereinafter
“Boyes Decl.”). Appeal Br. Evidence Appendix, Ex. 1.
4 The Boyes Declaration indicates that the level of skill in the art is high
(PhD in Antennas and Electromagnetics and over 20 years of experience
considered “at least ‘one of skill in the art’”). See Boyes Decl. ¶ 14.
Appeal 2020-006600
Application 15/572,308

7
user operating in phase with each other to produce an omnidirectional effect,
just as Appellant’s structure. Id. at 4; Final Act. 3, citing Adams col. 5, ll.
60–62.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the
Examiner’s rejection lacks rational underpinning because Adams discloses
broadband UHF antennas and Salonen disclosed narrow-band planar
inverted-F antennas. Appeal Br. 11–13. In particular, Appellant points to
the disclosure in Adams that UHF antennas operate in a frequency range of
about 100 MHz to about 500 MHz, whereas Salonen discloses that PIFA
dual-band antennas operate at GSM and Bluetooth frequencies of 900 MHz
and 2.4 GHz, respectively. Id. at 11–12.5 However, as the Examiner further
explains, the PIFAs of Salonen would be used in their respective bands to
communicate in the GSM or PCS bands, which are the dominant digital
access techniques in mobile communications in Europe and the USA.
Ans. 6–7. The Examiner’s rationale depends on the position that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have replaced the antennas in Adams for the
antennas in Salonen for their specific communication purposes. Thus, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced the antennas of Adams with
those in Salonen to be used for GSM communications. In KSR, the Supreme
Court explained, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor,
design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either
in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR,

5 The Examiner points out, the UHF band spans from 300 MHz and 3 GHz.
Ans. 6.
Appeal 2020-006600
Application 15/572,308

8
550 U.S. at 417. Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s rationale to be
sufficiently supported by the record.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from placing the
antennas of Salonen on the front and back regions of a user based on the risk
factors of radiation exposure identified in Salonen. Reply Br. 5, citing
Salonen, caption of Fig. 6. Appellant’s argument is not consistent with
Salonen as a whole, which expressly discloses that the ground plane of
antennas acts as shield, preventing radiation in the direction of human
organs. Salonen §§ 2, 2.2. In addition, Salonen’s disclosure of radiation
exposure is with reference to the head (Salonen, Fig. 6 Caption), such that
placement of Salonen’s antennas on the front and back portions of Adams is
removed from the head similar to Salonen’s placement of the antenna on the
shoulder. Moreover, the ground plane of Salonen’s antennas protects human
organs from radiation (Salonen § 2.2), and as a result would serve to direct
the radiation away from the user’s body as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 8–
11, and 16.

Rejections 2–6
Appellant does not separately argue the claims subject to Rejections
2–6. See Appeal Br. 13. Thus, our discussion applies equally to Rejections
2–6, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for similar reasons as
discussed above for Rejection 1.

Appeal 2020-006600
Application 15/572,308

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 8–
11, 16
103 Adams, Salonen 1–3, 5, 8–
11, 16

4 103 Adams, Salonen,
Anguera Pros
4
6 103 Adams, Salonen,
Lyu
6
7 103 Adams, Salonen,
Burnside,
Vummidi Murali
7
12, 13 103 Adams, Salonen,
Rhoads
12, 13
14 103 Adams, Salonen,
Burnside
14
Overall
Outcome
1–14, 16

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED