AIRBUS DEFENCE AND SPACE GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 25, 2021

2020002173 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 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. 15/381,873 12/16/2016 Volker ZIEGLER 1406/800/85 5011 25297 7590 03/25/2021 Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A. 3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard Suite 550 Morrisville, NC 27560 EXAMINER MUNOZ, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2896 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2021 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): datcheson@jwth.com usptomail@jwth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE7 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VOLKER ZIEGLER and ENRIC MIRALLES NAVARRO Appeal 2020-002173 Application 15/381,873 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Airbus Defence and Space GmbH (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-002173 Application 15/381,873 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a circuit board including an integrated broadband antenna for high frequency applications. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A circuit board comprising: a substantially planar component carrier; a microstrip applied to a surface of the component carrier and extending towards a connection transition, which is arranged on a lateral edge of the component carrier; and an antenna element produced by a 3D printing process and comprising a waveguide portion with a rectangular hollow cross section, which is coupled to the connection transition of the component carrier. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Herbsommer US 2014/0285289 A1 Sept. 25, 2014 REJECTION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–10 102(a)(1), 103 Herbsommer OPINION We need address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 1. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation by pointing out where all of the claim limitations appear, either expressly or inherently, in a single reference. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. Appeal 2020-002173 Application 15/381,873 3 U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Appellant’s claim 1 requires a microstrip (4; Fig 1) applied to a surface of a component carrier (1) and extending toward a connection transition (5) on a lateral edge of the component carrier, and an antenna element (6) coupled to the connection transition of the component carrier. Herbsommer discloses a multilayer substrate (2910) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellant’s component carrier (Final 6)) comprising multiple conductive layers (2911) separated by insulating layers and having formed therein a horn antenna (2960) with horn shaped top and bottom plates (¶ 147; Figs. 30A, 30B). The horn antenna (2960) has an input end (2972) configured as a rectangular metallic waveguide (2973), at the input of which the bottom plate is coupled to a ground plane element (2952) and the top plate is coupled to a microstrip line (2950)’s tapered section (2951) such that the microstrip line (2950) (which the Examiner relies upon as corresponding to the Appellant’s microstrip (Final 5)) is above and spaced apart from the ground plane element (2952) (¶¶ 147, 148, 150; Figs. 30A, 30B). “The intent is to smoothly transition from the microstrip line medium of wave propagation, then into the rectangular waveguide medium of wave propagation, and ultimately radiate the field out of the horn antenna” (¶ 151). The Examiner finds (Final 5): Herbsommer discloses (Figs. 29-30B) a substantially planar component carrier (2910); a microstrip (2950) applied to a surface of the component carrier (see Fig. 30B) and extending towards a connection transition (portion on which 2951 lies) which is arranged on a lateral edge of the component carrier (see Fig. 30A). Appeal 2020-002173 Application 15/381,873 4 The Examiner finds that the outer portion of Herbsommer’s multilayer substrate (2910) on which the microstrip line (2950) lies corresponds to the Appellant’s lateral edge, and the section of the multilayer substrate (2910) at which it transitions from a carrier of the microstrip line (2950) to a waveguide (2973) portion is on the lateral edge and corresponds to the Appellant’s connection transition (Ans. 4–6). “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007), quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Appellant’s Specification states that “[a]t least one of the microstrip portions 4b extends over the surface of the component carrier 1 towards a connection transition 5 which is arranged on a lateral edge of the component carrier 1” (Spec. 15:5–7). The connection transition (5) at the lateral edge is illustrated as being an end of the component carrier (1) (Fig. 1). That description of the lateral edge is consistent with the ordinary meaning of “lateral,” which is “of or relating to the side; situated at, proceeding from, or directed to a side: a lateral view.”2 Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation of the Appellant’s claim term “lateral edge” as encompassing the location on Herbsommer’s multilayer substrate (2910) on which the microstrip line (2950) lies (Figs. 29, 30A) is an unreasonably broad interpretation of that term in view of the Appellant’s Specification. The Examiner finds that Herbsommer’s rectangular metallic waveguide (2973) is hollow because “[n]o conductive portions are present 2 dictionary.com/browse/lateral. Appeal 2020-002173 Application 15/381,873 5 within the waveguide 2973 (see Fig. 29), making it hollow with regards to the conductive elements. It is filled with dielectric from 2910, but this is not part of the waveguide portion 2973” (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds that “[t]his interpretation, i.e. that a hollow waveguide portion can be filled with dielectric and still be described as hollow, is consistent with the antenna art” (id.). In support of that finding, the Examiner relies upon US 2015/0048471 to Hasch et al., which states (¶ 9): “The waveguide is equipped to enable the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in the longitudinal direction of the waveguide on the inside of the waveguide, especially in the manner of a hollow conductor or a hollow conductor filled with a dielectric” (Ans. 8–9). The Examiner’s interpretation of the Appellant’s claim term “hollow” is inconsistent with Herbsommer, which states that “[a] dielectric waveguide employs a solid dielectric core rather than a hollow pipe” (¶ 4). That interpretation also is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of “hollow,” which is “having a space or cavity inside; not solid; empty.”3 Also, Hasch’s disclosure that the wave can propagate “in the manner of a hollow conductor or a hollow conductor filled with dielectric” appears to make a distinction between a hollow conductor and a dielectric- filled conductor. Therefore, the Examiner’s interpretation of the Appellant’s claim term “waveguide portion with a rectangular hollow cross section” as encompassing Herbsommer’s dielectric waveguide (2973) appears to be based upon an unreasonably broad interpretation of “hollow” in view of the Appellant’s Specification. 3 dictionary.com/browse/hollow. Appeal 2020-002173 Application 15/381,873 6 Thus, the Examiner has not carried the burden of establishing that all of the Appellant’s claim limitations appear, either expressly or inherently, in a single reference. Accordingly we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds that “[a]rranging these elements [Herbsommer’s microstrip (2950) and waveguide (2973) inlet] as close to the side of the planar component carrier is desirable (sic) as it reduces the dielectric losses caused by the substrate (see para [0153] of Herbsommer discussing the need to minimize losses based on dimensions and the substrate material losses)” (Ans. 6). Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner does not establish that Herbsommer’s disclosure that “in order to minimize loss, horn length and exact dimensions are selected to achieve a higher gain without minimal loses based on the frequency of operation and the material used to fabricate the multilayer substrate” (¶ 153) would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to arrange the transition from Herbsommer’s microstrip (2950)’s tapered section (2951) to the waveguide (2973)’s inlet close to a side of the package substrate (2910). Nor does the Examiner establish that placing the microstrip (2950) and the waveguide (2973) close to a side of the package substrate (2910) would have placed them at a lateral edge of the package substrate (2910). Appeal 2020-002173 Application 15/381,873 7 The Examiner finds (Ans. 10): Providing an air-filled waveguide would have been well within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Herbsommer is focused on reducing cost (see [0040]) at the detriment of increasing electrical losses. Different arrangements of waveguides will have various benefits, and teaching using dielectric provides a benefit over another not using dielectric is not teaching away from not using dielectric. Herbsommer’s horn antenna (2960) and rectangular waveguide (2973) contain filament lines (2963) that join vias (2962) at each of multiple copper layers between the top and bottom plates to improve the reflective characteristic of the via walls (¶ 149). The Examiner does not establish that Herbsommer’s disclosure that “[f]or the exceedingly small wavelengths encountered for sub-THz radio frequency (RF) signals, dielectric waveguides perform well and are much less expensive to fabricate than hollow metal waveguides” (¶ 40) would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to make Herbsommer’s waveguide hollow and, therefore, more expensive. For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103 is reversed. Appeal 2020-002173 Application 15/381,873 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–10 102(a)(1) Herbsommer 1–10 1–10 103 Herbsommer 1–10 Overall Outcome 1–10 REVERSED