Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 2017

13457546 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2017)

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. 13/457,546 04/27/2012 Joseph M. Anderson RTN-660AUS/10-1133-US-NP 1991 33164 7590 08/25/2017 RAYTHEON COMPANY C/O DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP 354A TURNPIKE STREET SUITE 301A CANTON, MA 02021 EXAMINER MUNOZ, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2845 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2017 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): docketing@dc-m.com amk@dc-m.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH M. ANDERSON, JARED W. JORDAN, and CHARLES C. GILBERT Appeal 2016-000981 Application 13/457,546 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20. The Examiner rejects claims 1— 5, 9, and 11—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yu2 in view of Debski,3 and adds various other prior art references to reject claims 6—8 and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Raytheon Company. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Yu et al., U.S. 6,052,889, issued April 25, 2000. 3 Debski et al., U.S. 4,063,248, issued December 13, 1977. Appeal 2016-000981 Application 13/457,546 The claims are directed to an antenna and apparatus (see, e.g., claims 1 and 20), and a method of communicating with electromagnetic energy representing information by assembling an apparatus (claim 16). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An antenna, comprising: a suspended air stripline (SAS) disposed in a housing, said SAS having a proximate end and a distal end; a ridged waveguide coupler having a proximate end and a distal end, said proximate end of said ridged waveguide coupler disposed substantially in an aperture in said housing and coupled thereto, said aperture located above said distal end of said SAS; and one or more radiating elements coupled to the distal end of said ridged waveguide coupler, wherein said one or more radiating elements are configured to couple electromagnetic energy from the proximate end of said SAS, through said ridged waveguide coupler, and into free space. Corrected Claims Appendix (Resp. to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Br. (dated Mar. 17, 2015)). OPINION The Examiner finds that Yu teaches an antenna with a suspended air stripline (58) (SAS), a coupler (20), and radiating elements (22) where the radiating elements are configured to couple electromagnetic energy from the proximate end of the SAS through the ridged waveguide coupler and into free space as required by claim 1. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner acknowledges that Yu does not teach using a ridged waveguide coupler, but finds that Debski teaches such a ridged waveguide coupler at 10. Final Act. 4—5. According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used “the 2 Appeal 2016-000981 Application 13/457,546 ridged waveguide coupler of Debski in the antenna apparatus of Yu ‘to provide a relatively wide band-width of radiator operation.’” Final Act. 6 (quoting Debski col. 3,11. 59-66). The Examiner makes analogous findings and conclusions in the rejections of the other independent claims, claims 16 and 20. Final Act. 7—9. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred with regard to the finding of a suggestion to combine. Appeal Br. 14. Yu discloses a radio frequency antenna (10) (Fig. 1) that includes broadband radiating elements (18) (Figs. 2—3) affixed onto plate (12) (Figs. 5—6). Yu col. 4,11. 1—35; col. 5,11. 1—6. As shown in Figure 3, each broadband radio frequency radiating element (18) includes a generally parallelepiped, hollow body (20), which will be between the ear-like arms (radiating elements 22) and suspended air stripline (SAS) (58 in Fig. 7, also labeled 50 in Figs. 5—6) in the assembled antenna. Yu col. 4,11. 13—20; col. 5,1. 66—col. 6,1. 1. As shown in Figures 3 and 4, within the hollow body (20) is an L- shaped conductor (36) and transmission line cavities (28, 30) that serve as a coaxial transmission line for RF energy travelling to or from the ear-like arms (22) (radiating elements). Yu col. 4,11. 60-63. Thus, radiating elements (ear-like arms 22) are configured to couple electromagnetic energy from the SAS, through the coaxial transmission line (shaped conductor 36 and cavities 28, 30) within the hollow body (20), and into free space. Debski teaches a different configuration for a different kind of antenna. Debski teaches a multiple polarization antenna with a waveguide radiator 10 and a dipole radiator 12. Debski col. 3,11. 21—33. Radiator 10 receives an electromagnetic signal through coaxial connector 44. Debski col. 3,1. 33—col. 4,1. 10. Dipole radiator 12 receives a separate 3 Appeal 2016-000981 Application 13/457,546 electromagnetic signal through coaxial connector 38. Debski col. 4,11. 12— 32. The Examiner’s rejection rests on the modification of Yu’s hollow body (20) with Debski’s radiator (10), but these two components perform different functions. Yu’s hollow body is a housing around a coaxial transmission line that delivers an electromagnetic signal to ear-like arms (radiators 22). Debski’s radiator (10) is a radiator that receives an electromagnetic signal from a coaxial connector 44 and radiates the signal into space. Debski col. 3,11. 29—38. The Examiner fails to provide an adequate reason why one would substitute Yu’s hollow body (20) with Debski’s radiator (10). The Examiner cites column 3, lines 59—66 of Debski to support the finding of a reason to make the modification, but this portion of Debski does not supply the missing evidence. This portion of Debski discusses a design of a radiator, not a coupler or housing such as that taught by Yu. The deficiency of the main rejection is not cured in the Examiner’s subsidiary rejections. CONCLUSION We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 4