Ex Parte Bellows

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12858561 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/858,561 08/18/2010 David E. Bellows
126568 7590 06/29/2016
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SBL08880 6132
EXAMINER
ISLAM, HASAN Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID E. BELLOWS
Appeal2015-000572
Application 12/858,561
Technology Center 2800
Before, BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1---6, 8-14, and 16-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-000572
Application 12/858,561
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application concerns "an integrated and isolated area
network (LAN) antenna for a mobile computing device." Spec. i-f 1. Claim
1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. An antenna for a mobile device comprising:
a housing formed from a metal material, a surface of the
housing functioning as a ground plane for the antenna and an RF
shield for shielding at least one electronic component of the
mobile device located within the housing;
an insulating material covering at least an exterior portion
of the surface of the housing;
a radiating element oriented substantially parallel to the
ground plane and disposed on the insulating material such that at
least a portion of the radiating element overlaps a portion of the
ground plane covered by the insulating material to prevent RF
energy from the radiating element from interfering with the at
least one electronic component located within the housing; and
a shorting post oriented substantially perpendicular to the
radiating element, the shorting post shorting one end of the
radiating element to the ground plane.
App. Br. 12.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6, 8-14, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over two or more of of Ito, 1 Bergh, 2 Hirota, 3 and Chen4 .
Final Act. 2-7.
1 Ito et al. (US 6,507,318 B2; issued Jan. 14, 2003).
2 Bergh (US 7 ,856,259 B2; issued Dec. 21, 2010).
3 Hirota et al. (US 2008/0316120 Al; published Dec. 25, 2008).
4 Chen et al. (US 2006/0270472 Al; published Nov. 30, 2006).
2
Appeal2015-000572
Application 12/858,561
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments and the evidence of record, and we are unpersuaded that the
Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner's reasoning, findings, and
conclusions set forth in the Final Action and Answer to the extent consistent
with the analysis below. Appellant has waived arguments that were not
raised explicitly in the briefing. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473,
1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). We address Appellant's arguments in
tum.
Radiating Element
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Ito's conductive flat
plate teaches or suggests "a radiating element" as recited in claim 1. See
App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant cites the Specification as evidence
that "the radiating element of the antenna enables the antenna to resonate in
afrequency range of, for example, 2.4 GHz to 2.5 GHz." App. Br. 8
(discussing Spec. i-fi-127, 30) (emphasis added). Appellant asserts Ito's
conductive flat plate does not "enable[] the antenna to resonate in a
frequency range" but rather operates with a shield case and a dielectric to
reduce the quantity of electromagnetic waves absorbed by the human body.
See App. Br. 9 (citing Ito col. 4, 11. 11-29). Appellant further cites the
specification as evidence that "the radiating element recited in claim 1 is fed,
for example, with a coaxial feed 418." App. Br. 9 (citing Spec. i-fi-139--40)
(emphasis added). Appellant further explains Ito's conductive flat plate is
not "fed" because it is not a radiating element (App. Br. 9) and that "only the
3
Appeal2015-000572
Application 12/858,561
shield case ... in Ito [is] fod by the feeder 3, not the conductive flat plate
11" (Reply Br. 3--4 ).
We are unpersuaded of error. Generally, unless an applicant has
clearly set forth a special definition of a disputed claim term in the
specification, we give the term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light
of the specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en bane). Here, Appellant's specification does not clearly define
the "radiating element" as alleged by Appellant. Rather, Appellant's
specification discloses that "[ v ]oids can be formed in the radiator 302 to
create resonances in the modal distribution at different frequencies of the
antenna" and "[i]n one embodiment, ... the antenna 300 can resonate in the
frequency range of about 2.4GHz to 2.5 GHz.". Spec. i-fi-128, 29 (emphasis
added). Appellant's specification further discloses that "[t]he antenna 400
also includes a feed ... [that] can be a coaxial feed 418 having a center
conductor 420 ... connected to the radiating element 410." Spec. i139
(emphasis added). Because these portions of Appellant's specification
merely offer examples of and do not clearly define a "radiating element,"
they are non-limiting and cannot be imported into the claims. See General
Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 179 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
("[W]hat is patented is not restricted to the examples, but is defined by the
words in the claims") (citation omitted). Appellant has not identified any
part of their specification that clearly defines "radiating element," much less
defines the term as (1) enabling the antenna to resonate in a particular
frequency range and (2) fed with a feed. Accordingly, we will not limit the
term "radiating element" to the exemplary embodiments identified by
Appellant. See id.; SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d
4
Appeal2015-000572
Application 12/858,561
870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[I]t is important not to import into a claim
limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a
claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.").
The Examiner found the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"radiating element" includes Ito's conductive flat plate. See Final Act. 3
(citing Ito Fig. 3, item 11); Ans. 2-3. This interpretation is consistent with
Appellant's specification in that "the radiating element 410 can be formed of
a single sheet of conductive material." See Spec. i-f 37. And as found by the
Examiner, Ito explicitly discloses that the entire communication device of
which the conductive flat plate is a part operates as an antenna. See Ans. 2;
Ito 3:65--4:5 (disclosing that "the relevant antenna 4 alone does not operate
as an antenna ... [rather] a high-frequency current flows from the antenna
feed part 3 ... into a ground conductor ... or into a shield case 2 with the
result that the portable communication apparatus 10 operates as an antenna
as a whole" (italics added)). As explained above, Appellant has not
identified anything in the specification that limits the claimed "radiating
element" to an antenna that resonates in a particular frequency range and is
fed with a feed. See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3--4. Nor has Appellant
persuasively argued that Ito's conductive flat plate fails to teach or suggest
any of the features of the "radiating element" recited in claim 1. See App.
Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3--4. Accordingly, Appellant's arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred.
5
Appeal2015-000572
Application 12/858,561
Teaching Away
Appellant further contends that "while Bergh discloses that [the]
housing of the antenna is formed from a metal material, Bergh teaches away
from the elements of claim 1." App. Br. 9. Appellant explains that Bergh
teaches away because its metal casing is connected only to the radio circuit
and not to ground or another fixed electrical potential. See App. Br. 9-10;
Reply Br. 5. Therefore, Appellant argues one of ordinary skill would not
connect Berg's metal casing with Ito's non-conductive material casing. See
App. Br. 10.
We are unpersuaded of error. At most, Appellant has demonstrated
that there are differences between Ito and Bergh, which is insufficient to
establish a teaching away. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Further, to the extent Appellant is arguing that there is no reason
one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Bergh's metal casing with
Ito's casing because of the differences between the references, we are
unpersuaded because the arguments improperly assume Ito and Bergh must
be physically combinable. "The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). "Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. As the
Examiner found,
[t]he Bergh reference was used to NOT substitute the Ito housing
with that of Bergh's, but to rather illustrate the obviousness of
using metallic housing. Indeed, Bergh provides explicit
reasoning as to why housing of a device may be formed of
electrically conductive material such as aluminum or other
6
Appeal2015-000572
Application 12/858,561
metals (see col. 3, lines 34-38), e.g., for aesthetics and various
design reasons.
Ans. 3--4. Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 10 and 16, and
dependent claims 2---6, 8, 9, 11-14, and 17-19, which were not separately
argued with particularity beyond the arguments advanced for claim 1. See
App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 3---6.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1---6, 8-14, and 16-19 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7