Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2017

13457547 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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. 13/457,547 04/27/2012 Joseph M. Anderson RTN-660BUS/10-1153-US-NP 1017 33164 7590 03/30/2017 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 03/30/2017 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 G. GILBERT Appeal 2015-007264 Application 13/457,547 Technology Center 2800 Before PETER F. KRATZ, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—24 of Application 13/457,547 (“the ‘547 Application”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 2— 13. Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. 1 Raytheon Company is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-007264 Application 13/457,547 BACKGROUND The ’547 Application relates to the manufacture and structure of an antenna system comprising an array of ridged waveguide Vivaldi radiator antenna elements disposed over a ground plane including an electromagnetic bandgap (EBG) material. Spec. 111. Claim 1 is representative of the ’547 Application’s claims and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 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; an electromagnetic bandgap (EBG) ground plane disposed on said housing substantially surrounding said ridged waveguide coupler; 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. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). REJECTION On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 3—7, 11, 13—18, and 20—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yu et al. (US 6,052,889, iss. April 25, 2000) (hereinafter “Yu”) in view of Anthony Lai et 2 Appeal 2015-007264 Application 13/457,547 al., Infinite Wavelength Resonant Antennas with Monopolar Radiation Pattern Based on Periodic Structures, 55 IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, No. 3, 868—876 (March 2007) (hereinafter “Lai”) and further in view of Debski et al. (US 4,063,248, iss. Dec. 13, 1977) (hereinafter “Debski”). Final Act. 2—10. 2. Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yu, Lai, and Debski and further in view of Robert et al. (US 2009/0303128 Al, pub. Dec. 10, 2009) (hereinafter “Robert”). Id. at 10. 3. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yu, Lai, and Debski and further in view of Rief et al. (US 6,271,799 Bl, iss. Aug. 7, 2001). Id. at 11. 4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yu, Lai, and Debski and further in view of Anderson (US 4,427,984, iss. Jan. 24, 1984) (hereinafter “Anderson”). Id. at 11-12. 5. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yu, Lai, and Debski and further in view of Aisenbrey (US 2004/0233112 Al, pub. Nov. 25, 2004) (hereinafter “Aisenbrey”). Id. at 12—13. DISCUSSION Rejection 1. In rejecting claims 1, 3—7, 11, and 13—18, the Examiner finds that Debski teaches a ridged waveguide coupler as required by independent claims 1 and 18 and claims depending therefrom. Final Act. 5. 3 Appeal 2015-007264 Application 13/457,547 Figure 1 of Debski is reproduced below: Figure 1 depicts the antenna element of Debski including waveguide radiator 10, dipole radiator 12, and coaxial connector 38. Debski 3:21—24, 4:24—28. The Examiner found that “Debski teaches (Figs. 1-6) a ridged waveguide coupler (10) having a proximate end (21) and a distal end . . . [and] one or more radiating elements (12) coupled to the distal end of said coupler (see Fig. 1).” Final Act. 5. Appellants argue that Debski does not teach a ridged waveguide coupler. Appeal Br. 10—14. Rather, they assert, Debski teaches a ridged waveguide radiator which radiates wave energy signals into free space. Id. at 11. Appellants further contend that Debski is intended to permit radiating signals in multiple polarizations through the simultaneous use of both waveguide radiator 10 and dipole radiator 12. Id. In support, Appellants note that Debski teaches that wave energy signals are supplied to dipole 4 Appeal 2015-007264 Application 13/457,547 radiator 12 by coaxial connector 38 rather than through the interior of the ridged waveguide. Id. at 12 (citing Debski 4:12—32). The Examiner concedes this point, but finds that Debski “electromagnetically couples dipole arms 26 and 28 using elements 30 and 36 to the feed 38” and that elements 30 and 36 are parts waveguide radiator 10. Answer 5. That is, the Examiner construes electromagnetic energy passing through the coaxial connector 38 and the strip line 36 as “through said ridged waveguide coupler” as required by claim 1. This is at odds with the Specification, which provides as follows: In contrast with other approaches, this approach requires no additional components other than ridged waveguide coupler 220 and Vivaldi radiators 230. Use is made of the ridged waveguide's dominant TE10 mode as a coupling mechanism rather than the coaxial mode employed in the prior art (such as, for example, Yu '889). Spec. 135. Construing the claim term in view of the Specification, we determine that electromagnetic energy passing through the coaxial connector 38 of Debski does not pass “through said ridged waveguide coupler.” Accordingly, we do not adopt the Examiner’s finding that Debski teaches a ridged waveguide coupler. Appellants further argue that the Examiner has failed to state an adequate reason to combine the teachings of Yu and Debski. Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner finds that such combination would have been obvious so as “to provide a relatively wide band-width of radiator operation.” Final Act. 5.2 The teaching of Debski cited in support of this finding concerns the 2 The Examiner cites Yu 3:59—66 in support of the finding regarding reason to combine. We construe this as a reference to Debski 3:59—63. 5 Appeal 2015-007264 Application 13/457,547 “coaxial to ridge waveguide transition” in the context of a waveguide radiator. See Debski 3:59—66. The cited passage does not include any teaching regarding the benefit or detriment of using a ridged waveguide coupler to couple energy from a suspended air stripline to a radiating element. In view of the foregoing, Rejection 1 is not sustained. Rejections 2—5. Appellants seek review of Rejections 2—5 on the same basis as Rejection 1. Each claim of the ‘547 Application depends from claim 1, claim 18, or claim 24. Each of these claims requires a ridged waveguide coupler through which wave energy is coupled to a radiating element. Appeal Br. 21, 23, 24 (Claims App.). Accordingly, these rejections are reversed for the same reasons as for Rejection 1. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1— 24 of the ’547 Application. REVERSED 6