Ex Parte Tuau et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 23, 2019

14374886 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/374,886 07/25/2014 48116 7590 01/25/2019 FAY SHARPE/NOKIA 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Denis Tuau 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. LUTZ 201880US01 4283 EXAMINER MUNOZ, DANIEL Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2845 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2019 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@faysharpe.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DENIS TUAU and ARMEL LEBA YON Appeal2018-006334 Application 14/374,886 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed July 25, 2014; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated November 25, 2016; Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed December 4, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated April 2, 2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated June 4, 2018. 2 Appellant is Applicant, Alcatel Lucent, which the Appeal Brief identifies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2018-006334 Application 14/374,886 BACKGROUND The subject matter of the application on appeal relates to a subreflector of a dual-reflector antenna. Spec. 1-2. Claim I-the sole independent claim on appeal-reads: 1. A subreflector of a dual-reflector antenna comprising: a first extremity comprising an internal convex surface; a second extremity adapted to be coupled with the extremity of a waveguide; and a body extending between the first extremity and the second extremity, comprising a first dielectric part having a portion penetrating into the waveguide and a portion external to the waveguide, and a second part comprising a first cylindrical portion contiguous to the first extremity of the subreflector whose diameter is greater than the portion outside the waveguide of the first dielectric part; wherein the second part is metallic and further comprises: a second cylindrical portion adjacent to the first cylindrical portion, extended by a conical portion that penetrates into the first dielectric part; a flat ring-shaped surface, supported by the first cylindrical portion, whichforms a less-than-90Â° angle with the axis (X-X') of the subreflector calculated so as to reflect the signal towards the center of the primary reflector; and wherein the flat ring-shaped surface: is disposed within the outer cylindrical wall delimiting the first cylindrical portion; and faces the primary reflector. App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix) ( emphasis added to highlight a key recitation in dispute). 2 Appeal2018-006334 Application 14/374,886 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 2, 4---6, and 12-143 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Sanford4 and Brandau. 5 II. Claims 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Sanford, Brandau, and Sanford '590. 6 OPINION Relevant to Appellant's arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that Sanford discloses a subreflector having a first dielectric part 3 that penetrates a waveguide, and a second part 5 that includes a flat ring-shaped surface 17. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Sanford Figs. IB, 3). Sanford's Figures IB and 3 are reproduced below: Fig. lB: : ._ :------Â·------n-------.: .. ---5 ~ LfZ~-.. "-....:...-... f-Â·':1Â·-~ / ! ] I Figure IB is a cross-section schematic of a subreflector joined via a spacer to a feed tube. Sanford 3 :56-60. Figure 3 is a cross-section 3 Claim 3, which the Examiner identifies as rejected but does not otherwise address (see Final Act. 2-7), is canceled. 4 US 5,973,652, issued October 26, 1999 ("Sanford"). 5 US 2013/0057444 Al, published March 7, 2013 ("Brandau"). 6 US 5,959,590, issued September 28, 1999 ("Sanford '590"). 3 Appeal2018-006334 Application 14/374,886 schematic of a subreflector showing primary reflecting surface 17 on which a standing wave Sis set up during use. Id. at 3:49---63. Appellant argues, inter alia, that the primary reflecting surface 17 in Sanford's device "forms a more-than-90Â° angle with the axis of the subreflector." App. Br. 8. For that reason, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that Sanford's reflecting surface 17 is a flat ring- shaped surface "which forms a less-than-90Â° angle with the axis (X-X') of the subreflector," as is recited in claim 1. Id. In response, the Examiner states that claim 1 encompasses either complementary angle measured between the reflecting surface 17 and the main axis of the subreflector. Ans. 3, 6. The Examiner produces an annotated version of Sanford's Figure 1 B to indicate the angle relied upon to meet the disputed claim recitation. Id. at 3. We reproduce the Examiner's annotations below: /kst .::~Â·Hrid;~frfd l Examiner's annotated version of Sanford Figure lB. Appellant replies that the Examiner's claim interpretation disregards the language in claim 1 that the recited less-than-90Â° angle is "calculated so 4 Appeal2018-006334 Application 14/374,886 as to reflect the signal towards the center of the primary reflector." Reply Br. 4. 7 We are persuaded of reversible error. Both Sanford and the instant Specification depict a primary reflector having a center which is aligned with a central axis of the subreflector. Sanford Fig. 9; Spec. Fig. 4. Claim 1 requires that the angle of the reflective surface is calculated such that signal is reflected toward the primary reflector's center. To that end, claim 1 requires that the reflective surface faces the primary reflector and forms an acute angle relative to the subreflector's axis. In contrast, Sanford's reflective surface 17, when viewed from the side that faces the primary reflector, forms an obtuse angle relative to the subreflector' s axis. Sanford Fig. 9. The Examiner's reliance on the complement of that angle in Sanford fails to account for the further requirement in claim 1 that the recited angle results in signal reflection toward the primary reflector's center. Sanford's Figure 9 depicts reflection that is directed away from the primary reflector's center, and the Examiner does not present any finding that Sanford's oppositely-angled surface would yield any reflection toward the primary reflector's center. Neither Brandau nor Sanford '590 is relied upon in a manner that overcomes the foregoing deficiency in the Examiner's reliance on Sanford. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner does not present findings sufficient to support a determination of obviousness with regard to claim 1. Accordingly, Rejections I and II are not sustained. 7 Appellant's Reply Brief is not paginated. Our citation to page 4 of the Reply Brief refers to the fourth consecutive page of that document. 5 Appeal2018-006334 Application 14/374,886 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--14 is reversed. REVERSED 6