Motorola Mobility LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021000808 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 15/839,775 12/12/2017 Junsheng Zhao MM02141-US-NP 6677 73635 7590 03/01/2022 Loppnow & Chapa [Motorola] P.O. Box 7588 Libertyville, IL 60048 EXAMINER TSVEY, GENNADIY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2648 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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.mobility@motorola.com docketing@loppchap.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JUNSHENG ZHAO, HUGH SMITH, and HAIXIA LIU Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Motorola Mobility LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 in the Final Action as follows: Claims 1-10 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Yli-Peltola (US 2017/0264721 A1, published Sept. 14, 2017) (“Yli-Peltola”) and Kwak et al. (US 2012/0218723 A1, published Aug. 30, 2012) (“Kwak”). Final Act. 7. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Yli-Peltola, Kwak, and Allore et al. (US 2016/0226130 A1, published Aug. 4, 2016) (“Allore”). Final Act. 22. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal. The claim is reproduced below, with indentations and bracketed numbers added for clarity and reference to the limitations in the claim: 1. An antenna system for use in an electronic device, the antenna system comprising: [1] a conductive substrate having a width, which corresponds to a distance between two opposite side edges of the conductive substrate proximate one end of the electronic device; [2] a pair of conductive arms, where each conductive arm in the pair of conductive arms has [2a] a connected end, which respectively couples to the conductive substrate at alternative ones of the opposite side edges of the conductive substrate proximate the one end of the electronic device, and [2b] an open end which extends away from the respectively coupled side edge of the conductive substrate toward the other one of the opposite side edges of the conductive substrate in a direction of extension, [2c] where the open ends of the conductive arms in the pair extend toward one another, stopping short of touching or overlapping the other conductive arm in the pair in the direction of extension away from the respectively coupled side Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 3 edge, thereby forming a gap between the open ends of the pair of conductive arms; [3] a signal source coupled to each of the conductive arms proximate the open ends of the pair of conductive arms for supplying a signal produced by the signal source to each of the conductive arms coupled thereto, [3a] wherein the signal source is coupled to at least one of the conductive arms via a respective feed line conductor, [3b] where the feed line conductor coupled to the open end of the at least one of the pair of conductive arms extends in the direction of extension which traverses at least a portion of the gap between the open ends of the pair of conductive arms. ANALYSIS The only substantive arguments provided by Appellant are directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. Claim 1 is directed to an antenna system for use in an electronic device. For illustrative purposes, Figure 4A of the Specification is reproduced below to show an embodiment of claim 1. Figure 4A, reproduced above, shows a pair [2] of conductive arms 402 [2a] connected to substrate 404 at position 408. Open ends [2b] of conductive arms 402 [2c] extend toward one another and form gap 412. The antenna further comprises signal source 414 [3] “coupled to each of the conductive arms [402] for supplying a signal produced by the signal source to each of the conductive arms.” While two signal sources are shown in Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 4 Figure 4A, claim 1 only recites “a” signal source, which can be one signal source coupled to both arms, or one signal source for each arm. Signal source 414 [3a] is coupled to conductive arms 402 by a “feed line conductor” which “traverses at least a portion of the gap between the open ends of the pair of conductive arms” [3b], shown as left feed line 416 traversing gap 412. The Examiner finds that Yli-Peltola describes an antenna system with a pair of conductive arms having open ends extending toward one another and forming a gap as recited in limitations [2], [2a], [2b], and [2c] of claim 1. Final Act. 7-8 (citing Yli-Peltola ¶ 21, Figs. 1-4). The Examiner also finds that Yli-Peltola discloses limitations [3] and [3a] of claim 1 of a signal source - the NFC (near field communication) controller 1020 of Yli-Peltola - coupled to each of the conductive arms via NFC feeds 103 and 104. Final Act. 8-9 (citing Yli-Peltola ¶¶ 20-22, 25-28, Fig. 4). With respect to the recitation in limitation [3b] of claim 1 that the “feed line conductor [is] coupled to the open end of the at least one of the pair of conductive arms,” which “traverses at least a portion of the gap between the open ends of the pair of conductive arms,” the Examiner cites the Kwak reference. The Examiner finds that Kwak describes an antenna system with feed line conductors 144a, 144b which traverse a gap as recited in [3b] of claim 1. Final Act. 4-6 (citing Kwak ¶ 57, Figs. 4, 5A, C-H). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Kwak’s gap traversing feed line conductors in Yli- Peltola’s antenna to increase the annular path for NFC feeds as described by Yli-Peltola. Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 5 Yli-Peltola in paragraph 0029 at its end repeats the desirability of providing a longer annular path for current corresponding to NFC feeds. Providing the feed line conductors making a loop, as disclosed by Kwak rather than directly feeding the antenna ends without any loops, would have been consistent with the stated by Yli-Peltola desirability of increasing the annular path for current corresponding to NFC feeds. Final Act. 5-6. Appellant argues that the combination of Yli-Peltola and Kwak does not make obvious limitations [3a] and [3b] of claim 1. Appeal Br. 4. We address Appellant’s arguments below. “feed line conductors” The Examiner finds that elements 103 and 104 of Yli-Peltola are the recited “feed line conductors” of [3a] and [3b] of claim 1 and the NFC (near field communication) controller 1020 in this same reference is the recited signal source. Final Act. 8-9. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings. Figure 4 of Yli-Peltola is a source of the dispute between the Examiner and Appellant. We, therefore, begin the analysis with Figure 4, which is reproduced below: Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 6 Figure 4 of Yli-Peltola, reproduced above, shows each of elements 103 and 104 coupled at one end to structural members 101 and 102, respectively, and coupled to NFC controller 1020 at their other ends. Each element 103 and 104 is depicted in the drawing with an in-line triangle. The Examiner identifies elements 103 and 104 as the claimed feedline conductors of limitations [3a] and [3b] of claim 1. Yli-Peltola discloses that “NFC controller 1020 may control the general operation of NFC and also send [signals] to or receive signals from NFC feeds 103, and 104.” Yli-Peltola ¶ 28. Yli-Peltola further discloses that “grounding components 106 and 107 may be configured such that the currents excited by NFC antenna feeds 103 and 104 in structural members 101 and 102 respectively follow a substantially annular path.” Id. ¶ 30. Yli- Peltola further explains: The direction of currents excited by feeds 103, 104 may be such that the magnetic fields so generated reinforce each other. For example, the current[] flows in the opposite directions in the feeds 103 and 104 as illustrated by dotted arrows. Id. Appellant contends that the triangle depicted in Figure 4 of Yli-Peltola is “an active element, such as an amplifier, or signal conditioning circuit element, which produces the signal which is then applied to the antenna structure.” Appeal Br. 5. Citing paragraphs 7-9 of Yli-Peltola, Appellant argues that “it is unfair to attempt to equate elements 103 and 104” to the recited “feed line conductors” because these elements are a “source of current, akin to a signal source.” Id. at 6. Appellant also contends that the Examiner “inappropriately attributes features of a circuit schematic symbol Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 7 for a signal source in the reference to the feed line conductor intended to couple the signal source to the conductive arm.” Id. at 8. With respect to the Examiner’s finding that the NFC controller 1020 serves as the recited signal source, Appellant contends that “while the NFC controller may produce or receive a signal, it is not the signal source for the conductive arm.” Appeal Br. 7. Instead, Appellant argues that the element 104 “function[s] as the signal source, as the signal associated more directly with the NFC controller 1020 is not applied to the conductive arm.” Id. Appellant explains “the NFC controller 1020 is a signal source for element 104, not a signal source for the conductive arm.” Id. Appellant further argues that “not everything serves as a signal source for everything in a path” which is “even more relevant where intervening elements serve to alter the nature of an earlier signal in the chain of elements.” Id. The NFC controller, Appellant argues, is “controlling the general operation of NFC,” which “does not make it the signal source, only a controller for managing at least some aspects of the overall operation.” Id. at 9. Appellant reiterates that the “actual source of the signals relative to the structural members 101 and 102 are the antenna feeds 103 and 104.” Id. Appellant’s arguments are not supported by persuasive objective evidence in this record. In paragraph 28, Yli-Peltola discloses that the NFC controller sends “signals” to the NFC feeds 103 and 104, which the Examiner reasonably finds represents a “signal source” because it provides “signals” to the NFC feeds. Appellant does not provide evidence to rebut this finding. Instead, Appellant alternatively argues that the NFC feeds 103 and 104 comprising the triangular structure are the signal sources [3a] “coupled to at least one of Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 8 the conductive arms.” Appeal Br. 9. But the only evidence Appellant points to in Yli-Peltola is the disclosure that the feeds “induce” or “excite a current.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Yli-Peltola ¶¶ 22, 26); see also Yli-Peltola ¶ 30 (cited above). The Examiner responds to Appellant by explaining that “the terms ‘excite’ and ‘induce’ are often used to show interaction between antenna feed and antenna itself, without antenna feed somehow altering the signal.” Ans. 30. To support this finding, the Examiner cites three published patent applications. Id. at 30-31. For example, the Examiner points to the description of an antenna unit in paragraph 32 of Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0183016 A1 (published June 23, 2016) (Ans. 30) disclosing: “Generally, the feed is provided to excite the antenna structure to radiate. The feed is connected to a transmitter unit to transmit an intended signal.” The transmitter produces the signal, while the feed transmits the signal from the transmitter to the antenna, exciting the antenna structure. The evidence provided by the Examiner persuades us that the term “excite” does not necessarily indicate that the feed is producing a signal, itself; instead a transmitter may produce a signal and the feed then “excites” the antenna with the transmitter signal. Appellant does not establish a deficiency in the Examiner’s findings with regard to the meaning of the term “excites,” but rather “stands by the assertion that the triangular structure associated with the antenna feed 103/104 functions as the source of the signal that is received by structural member 101/102 even if it only serves to amplify a signal that is received from another source.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant also attempts to distinguish Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0183016 A1 by arguing that the Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 9 publication refers to a “feed,” and not “feed line conductor” as recited in the claim. Id. at 6. This argument is not persuasive because Appellant has not pointed to persuasive factual evidence in Yli-Peltola, or elsewhere in the record, of what the triangular structure in Figure 4 represents. Indeed, it does not appear that Yli-Peltola defines the triangular structure or explains its function. On the other hand, Yli-Peltola discloses that NFC controller 1020 sends signals and is, therefore, a signal source. Yli-Peltola ¶ 28 (“NFC controller 1020 may control the general operation of NFC and also send to or receive signals from NFC feeds 103, and 104.”). Because feeds NFC 103, 104 excite the structural members 101 and 102 of the antenna structure by receiving signals from the NFC controller (Yli-Peltola ¶ 30), the claim limitation is met. Patent Application Publication No. 02016/0183016 A1 was not cited as part of the rejection, but simply to bolster the Examiner’s finding that the term “excite” used in Yli-Peltola does not mean that the feeds 103, 104 are signal sources, a finding that Appellant does not rebut with adequate factual evidence or arguments. Moreover, regardless of what the triangular element in Figure 4 of Yli-Peltola may represent, claim 1 does not exclude additional elements from being interposed between the signal source and conductive arms of the claim. Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342- 43 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[the Federal Circuit] has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’”; internal citations omitted). The only function defined by the limitation “[3] a signal source coupled to each of the conductive arms” of Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 10 claim 1 is that it is “for supplying a signal produced by the signal source to each of the conductive arms coupled thereto.” The NFC controller fulfills this function. Appellant contends that the controller is “not a signal source for the conductive arm,” but instead sends signals to the structure represented by the triangle. Appeal Br. 7. We do not agree with Appellant. To reiterate, the disclosure that the NFC controller sends signal to the feeds, and that the feeds excite the structural members of the antenna (Yli-Peltola ¶¶ 28, 30), was reasonably found by the Examiner to meet the claim limitation, a finding buttressed by the additional evidence cited in the Answer, including Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0183016 A1. Appellant does not explain how the presence of the triangular structure in the excitation path prevents the signals from the NFC controller from reaching the conductive arms. Even if the triangular structure of Figure 4 somehow modifies the signal, for which there is no evidence, the signal still emanates from the controller. In sum, Appellant has introduced no persuasive evidence, such as testimony from one or ordinary skill in the art, that the source of the signals sent to Yli-Peltola’s structural members 101 and 102 are antenna feeds 103 and 104 and not NFC controller 1020. An argument made by counsel in a brief does not substitute for evidence lacking in the record. Estee Lauder, Inc. v. L’Oréal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Feed line conductor traversing gap Claim 1 recites: [3b] where the feed line conductor coupled to the open end of the at least one of the pair of conductive arms extends in the Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 11 direction of extension which traverses at least a portion of the gap between the open ends of the pair of conductive arms. The Examiner finds this limitation of the claim obvious in view of Yli-Peltola and Kwak. The Examiner finds that Kwak describes an “implementation of antenna feed line conductors made in such a way that they traverse the gap between the first member 104 and second member 105.” Ans. 5. Appellant argues that, in Kwak, “only one of the open arms is shown being respectively coupled to a signal source, as provided in the claims.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also argues that the gap provided in Kwak is not the same type of gap recited in the claims. Id. As a result, Appellant argues “it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Kwak et al., ’723, in the manner suggested by the Examiner, with the teachings of Yli-Peltola, ’721, so that it could reasonably be said to make known or obvious each and every feature of the claims, as presently pending.” Appeal Br. 11. Figure 5A of Kwak, reproduced below, shows the disputed elements: Figure 5A of Kwak (above) shows a loop antenna. Kwak ¶¶ 23, 66. This embodiment comprises a “loop” that is formed from circuit board 160 Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 12 to power feed connecting portion 1412 and back to circuit board 160 via ground connecting portion 142. Id. ¶ 67. The loop includes patterns 144a, 144b and first member 104. Id. Slits or gaps are formed between member 104 and 105 of the antenna. Id. Each of 144a and 144b have portions that traverse slits 143. The Examiner does not disagree with Appellant that the gap shown by Kwak is different from the type of gap recited in the claim. Final Act. 6. The Examiner also does not dispute that Kwak’s gap is not defined by two open members, as recited in claim 1, because while member 105 is open, member 104 is part of a loop at the bottom end of the terminal. Kwak ¶¶ 66, 56 (“a loop antenna according to an embodiment of the present disclosure forms a closed loop together with a first member 104”). But the Examiner does not rely on Kwak to teach or suggest the type of gap recited in the claim. Instead, the Examiner finds that Yli-Peltola describes the recited gap configuration and expressly provides a reason why one of skill in the art would have had reason to apply the configuration of pattern 144b, traversing the slit in Kwak, to Yli-Peltola’s gap. Final Act. 3, 5-6. The Examiner acknowledges the differences in the antenna structures, but explaines: The fact that the shape of the antenna shown by Kwak is different from the shape recited by the claim is absolutely immaterial since the examiner has never relied on Kwak to teach the specific shape of the antenna. The shape of antenna is explicitly disclosed by Yli-Peltola. The only feature of claim 1 the examiner relied on Kwak is physical implementation of the 2 Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding that power feed connecting portion 141 of the loop antenna of Fig. 5A serves as a signal source. With respect to the claim recitation of limitation [3] that each arm is connected to signal source, Yli-Peltola shows the NFC controller coupled to both arms. Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 13 antenna feed making a loop and traversing the gap. The examiner has also provided the rationale and motivation to implement the antenna feed of Yli-Peltola as disclosed by Kwak. Final Act. 6 Appellant distinguishes the slit described by Kwak from the gap of Yli-Peltola, but does not adequately explain why these differences undermine the Examiner’s reason for combining Kwak’s teachings with those of Yli-Peltola. Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellant contends that “the type of gap matters,” but does not articulate what “matters” with respect to applying Kwak’s teachings to Yli-Peltola’s. Id. at 11-12. Appellant points to Figure 8 of Kwak which Appellant argues is “a closer approximation to the type of gap structure being claimed (slit portion 243),” but “there is no corresponding positioning of the feed line structure that can be said to traverse even at least partially, the slit 243, that is present between the two open ends of the arm.” Appeal Br. 12. Because Kwak’s Figure 8 does not depict a feed line structure traversing the slit/gap in the antenna structure, Appellant argues it is not “reasonable for the Examiner to suggest it would be obvious to include in another reference having a similar context in attempting to suggest claim 1 of the present application would be obvious.” Id. In other words, Appellant argues, Figure 8 of Kwak “actually shows how to apply [its] teachings to an instance in which two conductive arms are provided, as opposed to the embodiment involving a single loop as shown in FIGS 1-5H.” Reply Br. 5. Appellant does not persuade us by this argument that the Examiner errs. The rejection is based on the combination of Yli-Peltola and Kwak. The Examiner’s reason for combining the two references to arrive at the claimed Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 14 feed line conductor traversing the gap between the conductive arms is based on the teaching in Yli-Peltola of “providing a longer annular path for current corresponding to NFC feeds.” Yli-Peltola ¶ 29. Although Kwak does not describe the gap traversing element [3b] of claim 1 in its disclosure when using a “closer approximation” to the antenna structure of Yli-Peltola and the claim, Kwak is not cited by the Examiner as suggesting a feed line conductor that traverses a gap between the open ends of conductive arms. Appellant’s argument, to put it succinctly, is, if it were obvious to apply the gap traversing feed line conductor of Kwak to the gap of Yli- Peltola produced by two open end conductive arms, why didn’t Kwak do that in Kwak’s own embodiment of an antenna having a gap between two open end conductive arms? Aside from the Examiner’s finding that the reason to make this modification is provided by Yli-Peltola, the absence of a specific embodiment in Kwak disclosing the disputed limitation [3b] does not indicate the claimed feature would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellant has not provided evidence that all embodiments within the scope of Kwak’s disclosure are depicted in its drawings. Indeed, Kwak discloses: The configurations and methods according to the above- described embodiments will not be applicable in a limited way to the foregoing mobile communication terminal, and all or part of each embodiment may be selectively combined and configured to make various modifications thereto. Kwak ¶ 85. Thus, Kwak indicates that the disclosed configurations “will not be applicable in a limited way” and “may be selectively combined and configured to make various modifications thereto.” Id. Therefore, even if Kwak did not literally combine the teachings of its Figure 5A and those of Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 15 Figure 8 to produce a feed line conductor traversing the gap of the device of Figure 8, as recited by limitation [3b] of claim 1, Kwak specifically indicates that this combination is within the scope of its disclosure. Given the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known,” the preponderance of the evidence before us supports the obviousness of applying Kwak’s teachings to those of Yli-Peltola to achieve the antenna system of claim 1. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1 as obvious in view of Yli- Peltola and Kwak is affirmed. Claims 2-20 fall with claim 1 because separate reasons for their patentability were not provided by Appellant. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-10, 12-20 103 Yli-Peltola, Kwak 1-10, 12-20 11 103 Yli-Peltola, Kwak, Allore 11 Overall Outcome 1-20 Appeal 2021-000808 Application 15/839,775 16 TIME PERIOD 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