Ex Parte Peterson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2012

09915963 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
09/915,963 07/26/2001 George Earl Peterson 18 8322
7590 12/04/2012
Michael J. Urbano, Esq.
1445 Princeton Drive
Bethlehem, PA 18017-9166
EXAMINER
WIMER, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2821
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte GEORGE EARL PETERSON
_____________

Appeal 2012-012277
Application 09/915,963
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-012277
Application 09/915,963

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 3 through 10, 13 through 20, and 22 through 28.

We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an antenna that operates over a wide
frequency spectrum. The antenna structure includes a tapered antenna
element and a symmetrical ground plane. See page 2 of Appellant’s
Specification. Claim 3 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
3. An antenna structure comprising:

at least one antenna element, the at least one antenna
element having at least one taper; and

a symmetrical finite ground plane coupled with the at
least one antenna element;
wherein said ground plane is separated from said at least
one antenna element but is in sufficiently close proximity
thereto to cause fast wave excitation thereof;

wherein the at least one antenna element comprises a traveling
wave antenna supporting a phase velocity greater than the speed
of light, and wherein the taper comprises a linear profile, a
linear constant profile, a broken-linear profile, an exponential
profile, an exponential constant profile, a tangential profile, a
step-constant profile, or a parabolic profile.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 3 through 7, 9, 10, 13 through 16,
19, 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wu (US
Appeal 2012-012277
Application 09/915,963

3

6,317, 094 B1; Nov. 13, 2001) in view of Ogot (US 5,648,787; Jul. 15,
1997). Answer 4-81.
The Examiner has rejected claims 8, 17, 18 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wu in view of Ogot and Appellant’s admitted
prior art. Answer 8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 20 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wu in view of Kraus (J. D. Kraus, Antennas, 2nd Ed.,
McGraw Hill, NY (1988), pp. 759-760). Answer 9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wu in view of Wicks (US H2016 H; Apr. 2, 2002).
Answer 9-10.

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 5 through 8 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 through 7, 9, 10, 13 through 16, 19, 22, 23,
and 25 is in error.2 These arguments present us with the issues:
a) Did the Examiner err by not giving patentable weight to the
limitations reciting: the antenna supporting a cigar-like beam
pattern and butterfly wing-like pattern as recited in claim 4;
or supporting a phase velocity greater than the speed of
light, as recited in claim 3?

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed
December 21, 2011.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed
October 11, 2011.
Appeal 2012-012277
Application 09/915,963

4

b) Did the Examiner err in finding that Wu teaches the antenna
element is sufficiently close to the ground plane to cause fast
wave excitation and supports phase velocity greater than the
speed of light, as recited in claim 3?
c) Did the Examiner err in finding that Wu teaches a traveling
wave antenna supporting a phase velocity greater than the
speed of light?
d) Did the Examiner err in finding that Wu teaches an antenna
structure which supports a cigar-like beam pattern and
butterfly wing-like pattern, as recited in claim 4?
Appellant presents additional arguments with respect to claims 20 and
26 on page 9 of the Brief.
e) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of the
references teaches a slow wave antenna positioned at a
greater distance from the ground plane than other antenna
elements, as recited in claim 26?

Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 4, 8, 14, 17, 18, 22,
24, 27 and 28 present us with the same issues as discussed with
respect to claims 3 through 7, 9, 10, 13 through 16, 19, 22, 23, and
25.

Appeal 2012-012277
Application 09/915,963

5

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. The Examiner has
provided a comprehensive response, supported by ample evidence, to each
issue raised by Appellant. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion
reached by the Examiner.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3 through 10, 13
through 20, and 22 through 28 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke