Ex Parte Vanjani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 15, 2013

11460684 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KIRAN CHANDER VANJANI and METE OZKAR ____________ Appeal 2010-008574 Application 11/460,684 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008574 Application 11/460,684 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE According to Appellants, the invention relates generally to portable electronic devices such as mobile phones, and, more particularly, to portable electronic devices having an antenna for carrying out mobile communications. Spec. 1:5-6.1 Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:2 1. An electronic device comprising: a housing including an upper slider portion and a lower slider portion, the upper slider portion and the lower slider portion being slidably engaged to permit relative sliding motion therebetween along a sliding axis; an upper printed circuit board and upper ground plane housed within the upper slider portion, the upper printed circuit board having circuitry assembled thereon; a lower printed circuit board and lower ground plane housed within the lower slider portion, the lower printed circuit board having additional circuitry assembled thereon; 1 References to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) are directed to the Specification filed on July 28, 2006. 2 References to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) are directed to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on October 26, 2009, and references to the Reply are directed to Appellants’ Reply Brief filed on March 24, 2010. Appeal 2010-008574 Application 11/460,684 3 at least one of a radio transmitter or receiver within the housing for transmitting/receiving communications via the electronic device; an antenna housed within the lower slider portion generally laterally adjacent a first edge of the lower ground plane; an antenna feed point coupling the at least one of the radio transmitter or receiver to the antenna at a location generally at the center of the first edge of the lower ground plane; and a ground connection electrically connecting a second edge of the lower ground plane, adjacent the first edge, to an edge of the upper ground plane. As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the Examiner relies on the following references at pages 3 to 7 of the Answer:3 Shin US 6,973,186 B2 Dec. 6, 2005 Ozkar US 7,012,571 B1 Mar. 14, 2006 The Examiner provides the following ground of rejection, of which Appellants seek review: claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shin and Ozkar (Ans. 4-7). ISSUE Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because Ozkar fails to teach or suggest “an antenna feed point coupling the at least one of the radio transmitter or receiver to the antenna at a location generally at the center of the first edge of the lower ground plane.” 3 References to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) are directed to the Answer mailed on January 25, 2010. Appeal 2010-008574 Application 11/460,684 4 ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ contentions. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the dispositive issue, and provide the following discussion in support of our decision. Independent claim 1 requires “an antenna feed point coupling the at least one of the radio transmitter or receiver to the antenna at a location generally at the center of the first edge of the lower ground plane.” The Examiner finds that Ozkar teaches the antenna feed point and that the claimed location of that feed point would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Final Rejection 6. The Examiner reasons that the placement of the antenna feed point involves routine skill in the art, and therefore it would have been an obvious rearrangement. Id. Appellants contend that the claimed location of the antenna feed port is non-obvious because Appellants found “improved wideband performance of the electronic device [that] could not have been predicted from the prior art. App. Br. 5. While Appellants may overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by showing unexpected results, such showing must establish that the range of the optimal locations yields unexpected results relative to the prior art range of locations. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Appellants’ Specification does not disclose or compare differences in device performance attributable to locating the antenna feed point at the center of the first edge as opposed to locating the feed point at a non-central location. Rather, Appellants’ Specification discloses differences in device performance that result from providing a ground connection at one Appeal 2010-008574 Application 11/460,684 5 versus two edges of a slider having a centrally located antenna feed point. Spec. 8:13-27. Accordingly, we find that Appellants did not provide factual evidence sufficient to support their allegations of unexpected results. Appellants next contend that the Examiner’s finding is in error because the “prior art provides no motivation or reason to make the modifications to the antenna arrangement of Ozkar.” And that, in fact, Ozkar teaches away from “positioning the antenna feed port at a central position that is closer to the electrical connection.” App. Br. 5-6. We do not agree with Appellants’ conclusions. First, Appellants’ bare assertion that the electronic device’s operation is modified is not sufficient evidence to rebut the Examiner’s finding that arranging the placement of an antenna feed port at a location generally at the center involves routine skill in the art. To the extent Appellants argue that the prior art must supply a motivation or reason “to make the modifications to the antenna arrangement of Ozkar” (App. Br. 5), that motivation is supplied by Ozkar, which teaches that the distance between the antenna feed port and the connection 106 is empirically determined. Ozkar, col. 2, ll. 62-65; see also Ans. 8 (stating that in order to get the best radiation efficiency “feed port 110 can be located in the center or anywhere along line 115 as long as is away from ground connection (106 in fig. 1)”). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Second, Appellants’ argument that Ozkar teaches away from the claimed location of the antenna feed port, is not persuasive. A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was Appeal 2010-008574 Application 11/460,684 6 taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 53 (Fed. Cir. 1994). While Ozkar teaches that a distance 115 is optimal, that distance does not bar a person or ordinary skill in the art from pursuing a location of the antenna feed port that is generally at the center of the first edge of the lower ground plane. That is, Ozkar discloses that the antenna feed port may be located at multiple distances from an electrical connection, but Ozkar requires no specific distance of the antenna feed port with respect to the edge of the ground plane. Furthermore, giving the claim language the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification would not constrain a person of ordinary skill in the art to disregard the teachings in Ozkar. Appellants’ Specification describes the claim language, “generally at the center,” as a location where the antenna feed point is “closer to the center than [to] an edge.” Spec. 8:20-21. Since that general location can be along the axis shown in Ozkar by the arrows illustrating distance 115, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be deterred from maintaining the distance 115 (2.35 cm as disclosed in col. 3, ll. 6-7) while coupling the antenna feed port at a location closer to the center than to the side edge of ground plane 102. We also agree with the Examiner that Ozkar Figures 1 and 2 only teach that best radiation efficiency can be achieved by distancing antenna feed port 110 from the connection 106, but does not teach away from the claim. Ans. 8. As such, we are not persuaded that Ozkar teaches away from the invention as claimed. Appeal 2010-008574 Application 11/460,684 7 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting the independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shin and Ozkar. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection thereto, and we also sustain the rejection dependent claims 2-19, not separately argued. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-19. 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 tj