Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 2018

13907615 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/907,615 23990 7590 DOCKET CLERK FILING DATE 05/31/2013 03/20/2018 P.O. DRAWER 800889 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yong-Wook Hwang 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. Pl9250-US (SAMS05- l 9250) CONFIRMATION NO. 1049 EXAMINER JELSMA, JONATHAN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1721 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2018 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): patents@munckwilson.com munckwilson@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YONG-WOOK HWANG, SUNG-HO CHO, HEE-CHEUL MOON SEUNG-CHANG BAEK, and CHAN-SEOB PARK Appeal2017-006901 Application 13/907 ,615 Technology Center 1700 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-18 and 26-30 of Application 13/907,615 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Final Act. (June 27, 2016) 2-11. Appellant 1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM. 1 The Appellant is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., which is additionally identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-006901 Application 13/907, 615 BACKGROUND The present application generally relates to a cover for a cellular phone or other device. Spec. i-fi-12--4. More particularly, the application relates to a device cover formed of a metallic grid structure in combination with a nonmetallic material where the metallic grid structure is formed in such a way so as to not impair wireless transmissions to or from an antenna. Id. i-fi-1 6-7. The application further relates to a method of manufacturing such device covers. ISsue: Claims 1 and 27, reproduced below, are representative of the points at 1. A cover having a metallic grid structure, the cover compnsmg: a pattern portion formed of a metallic material, in which a plurality of patterns are independently disposed spaced apart from each other; an injection portion disposed between the patterns to fix the patterns, the injection portion being formed of a non- metallic material; and a connection film layer that is surface-treated, the connection film layer disposed between the pattern portion and the injection portion, at least one portion of the connection film layer disposed on an exterior surface of the cover and between adjacent patterns in the plurality of patterns, and wherein the injection portion is disposed between the patterns and under the patterns. 27. The cover of claim 26, wherein the at least on[ e] bridge is removable after formation of the injection portion, such that antenna radiation is able to pass through the cover. Appeal Br. (Claims App.). 2 Appeal2017-006901 Application 13/907, 615 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1--4, 7-9, 18, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a)(l) as obvious over Han2 in view of Park. 3 Final Act. 3-7. 2. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Han, in view of Park and further in view ofLim. 4 Id. at 8. 3. Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Han in view of Park and further in view of Shin. Id. at 9-11. DISCUSSION Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-9, 18, and 26-29 as obvious over the combination of Han and Park. In support of such rejection, the Examiner finds that Han teaches a film 250 (on which the antenna pattern is formed) equivalent to the "connection film layer" of claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that film 250 of Han is not taught to be on an exterior surface of a cover. Id. at 4. The Examiner further finds that Park teaches an externally exposed conductive layer that acts as an antenna. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move the pattern frame of Han to the surface of the cover, as in Park. Id. at 5. Appellant argues that such determination is in error. 2 US 2011/0279002 Al, published Nov. 17, 2011. 3 US 2012/0329531 Al, published Dec. 27, 2012. 4 US 2008/0019083 Al, published Jan. 24, 2008. 3 Appeal2017-006901 Application 13/907, 615 First, Appellant argues that Park's teaching of an externally exposed conductive layer 220 does not teach a connection film layer. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant asserts that claim 1 requires that the connection film layer is disposed between adjacent patterns formed of a metallic pattern while Park's conductive layer is an antenna element. Such argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner does not rely on conductive layer 220 of Park as satisfying the "connection film layer" limitation. Final Act. 3-5. Rather, the Examiner determines that "[t]he film 250 [of Han] is taken to be the claimed connection film layer." Id. at 3. Accordingly, Appellant's argument is inapposite. Even were this not the case, Appellant fails to offer any detailed explanation as to why Park's conductive layer falls outside the scope of the "connection film layer" of claim 1. Appeal Br. 11; Reply 5-6. In addition, we adopt pages 11 and 12 of the Examiner's Answer regarding the foregoing. Second, Appellant argues that Han fails to teach a connection film layer that is "disposed on an exterior surface of the cover and between adjacent patterns in the plurality of patterns" as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 12-13. Citing Figure 19 of Han, Appellant argues that "any portion of the film 250 that is between adjacent antenna pattern parts 222 is still clearly covered by at least the over mold part 217." Id. at 13. Figure 19 of Han is reproduced below: 4 Appeal2017-006901 Application 13/907, 615 Figure 19 "is a cross-sectional view of a case of a mobile communications terminal manufactured using the antenna pattern frame of FIG. 15." Han i-f 59. Appellant argues that, because the film 250 of Han is covered by over-mold part 217, Han would not teach a film on an exterior surface even if the antenna portion were disposed on the surface. Appeal Br. 13. In response, the Examiner finds that Figure 19 of Han is a cross- sectional view of a cover manufactured using the antenna pattern frame of Figure 15. Answer 12-13. Figure 15 of Han is reproduced below: 01'' .;.., Â·: ~ ............. 250 \ \, Figure 15 depicts an antenna pattern frame. Han i-f 59. As can be readily seen, "at least one portion of the connection film layer [250] [is] disposed on an exterior surface." In addition, we adopt pages 12-14 of the Examiner's Answer regarding the foregoing. 5 Appeal2017-006901 Application 13/907, 615 Accordingly, Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner's finding that the cited references teach "a connection film layer" having "at least one portion of the connection film layer disposed on an exterior surface of the cover and between adjacent patterns in the plurality of patterns." Appellant additionally argues that claim 27 was rejected in error. Appeal Br. 14--15. Claim 27 depends from claim 26 which, in tum, depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. (Claims App.). Claim 26 requires that the cover of claim 1 comprise "at least one bridge connecting the patterns, the at least one bridge configured to fix positions of the patterns." Id. Claim 27 further requires that "the at least on[ e] bridge is removable after formation of the injection portion, such that antenna radiation is able to pass through the cover." Id. In rejecting claim 26, the Examiner found that the over-mold part (217) of Han satisfies the "bridge" limitation. Final Act. 7. In rejecting claim 27, the Examiner further found that the "bridges of HAN are taken to be capable of being removed, as seen in Figure 20 the over-mold part is not used to fix the pattern 222 portions." Id. In the Answer, the Examiner additionally determined that the over-mold part is taught to be made of a resin that is cap ab le of being melted. Answer 15 (citing Han i-f 15 5). Appellant argues that Han's teaching regarding melting the over-mold part permits roughening and therefore greater adhesion between the case frame 130 (exterior to the film 250) and the radiator frame 210. Reply 7. Appellant further argues that the described melting capability does not provide a teaching that the over-mold part is removable. Id. Additionally, Appellant asserts that Han teaches that over-mold part 217 is necessary to fix the position of antenna part 222 relative to radiator frame 210. Id. 6 Appeal2017-006901 Application 13/907, 615 In order to determine if the cited references teach the limitations of claims 27, we construe the limitation "bridge is removable." During examination, claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An applicant seeking a narrower construction must either show why the broader construction is unreasonable or amend the claim to expressly state the scope intended. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Specification provides only limited teachings regarding removal of the bridge structure. The Specification instructs that "the shape, form, configuration, structure, and so forth of the bridge 112 can vary as long as the bridges 112 fix the positions of the patterns 111 and are removable later." Spec. i-f 27. It further explains that "the bridge[] 112 formed on a bottom or rear surface of the pre-pattern layer 105 is removed to secure antenna radiation performance" and that "[r]emoval of the bridge 112 can be performed using various methods such as CNC [Computerized Numerical Control], forging, etching, etc." Spec. i-f 31. Thus, the "bridge" limitation may encompass a variety of forms but must be capable of removal such that it does not impair antenna performance. Here, Han teaches an embodiment where a resin is injected at such a temperature as to melt the over-mold part 217. Han i-f 155. There is no indication that such melting process impairs antenna functionality. Moreover, melting is broadly akin to "forging, etching, etc." In this regard, the Examiner finds that "the over-mold portion is capable of being removed by at least the application of heat." Answer 15. Appellant's arguments regarding the melting enhancing adhesion and fixing the position of various parts do not rebut the Examiner's finding. 7 Appeal2017-006901 Application 13/907, 615 Accordingly, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Han teaches that "at least on[e] bridge is removable" as required by claim 27. Rejections 2 and 3. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 6 as obvious over Han in view of Park and further in view of Lim. Final Act. 8. The Examiner additionally rejected claims 10-17 as obvious over Han in view of Park and further in view of Shin. Id. at 9-11. In seeking reversal of the foregoing rejections, Appellant relies upon the arguments set forth with regard to Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 16. As these arguments have been determined not to be persuasive, we affirm the rejections of claims 5, 6, and 10-17. CONCLUSION The rejections of claims 1-18 and 26-30 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a). AFFIRMED 8