Nokia Shanghai Bell Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 15, 2022

2021002980 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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. 16/060,545 06/08/2018 Kostyantyn Semonov LUTZ 202288US01 2548 48116 7590 02/15/2022 FAY SHARPE/NOKIA 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 EXAMINER ISLAM, HASAN Z ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2845 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2022 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@faysharpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KOSTYANTYN SEMONOV, CHENGYU XU, and YAOHUAN LI Appeal 2021-002980 Application 16/060,545 Technology Center 2800 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-7.3 We reverse. 1 The following documents are of record: Specification filed June 8, 2018, as amended (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated June 18, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed November 3, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), and Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 19-20); Examiner’s Answer dated February 5, 2021 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed March 29, 2021 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Shanghai Bell Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2021-002980 Application 16/060,545 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A low band dipole, comprising: four dipole arms, wherein the four dipole arms are horizontally and mutually perpendicularly placed in a “+” shape, wherein adjacent mutually perpendicular dipole arms of the four dipole arms are fed therebetween. Appeal Br. 19. REJECTIONS Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: 1. claims 1-3 over Wansch (US 2011/0241972 A1, published October 6, 2011) in view of Jo (US 7,079,079 B2, issued July 18, 2006); 2. claims 1, 4, and 5 over Boryssenko (US 2015/0162665 A1, published June 11, 2015) in view of Jo; and 3. claims 1, 6, and 7 over Lee (US 2008/0074339 A1, published March 27, 2008) in view of Jo. OPINION The Examiner found that Wansch paragraph 38, Boryssenko paragraph 20, and Lee paragraph 37 each disclose the claim 1 limitation, “wherein adjacent mutually perpendicular dipole arms of the four dipole arms are fed therebetween.” Final Act. 4, 5, 8. The Appellant disagrees, and provides the following details as to why each reference does not disclose or suggest adjacent mutually perpendicular dipole arms that are fed therebetween. See generally Appeal Br. 8-9, 12-13, 16-17. Appeal 2021-002980 Application 16/060,545 3 The Appellant argues that Wansch’s “feeding points are symmetrical to one another and centered in relation to the corresponding dipole. For example, the Wansch drawings show the dipoles arranged on a sheet with the feeding points through a central portion of the sheet and below (not between) an interior end of the corresponding dipole.” Appeal Br. 9. The Appellant contends that Boryssenko’s “feed region is centrally located in relation to the four vertical dipole arms and the ground plane.” Id. at 12. The Appellant notes that “[i]n the Boryssenko drawings, the four feeds pass through feed apertures in the ground plane at the central portion of the ‘+’ pattern. . . . In yet another Boryssenko embodiment, the four feeds pass through a larger single feed aperture in the ground plane at the central portion of the ‘+’ pattern.” Id. at 13. The Appellant argues that “the Lee feeding unit 200 and balloon unit 300 are centrally located in relation to the four bent folded dipole components 100a-d of the antenna 100 and the ground unit 400.” Id. at 16-17. The Appellant notes that, “[f]or example, the Lee drawings show first and third feed points 200a, 200c and first and third feed line parts 100a-1, 100c-1 that feed first and third radiation parts 100a-2, 100c-2 via the centrally located balloon unit 300.” Id. at 17. The Examiner’s Answer does not include responses to the Appellant’s arguments that the applied prior art does not disclose or suggest a dipole structure “wherein adjacent mutually perpendicular dipole arms of the four dipole arms are fed therebetween.” See generally Ans. 9-12; see Reply Br. 6, 10-11, 15. We find that the Appellant’s and Examiner’s respective positions are based on an underlying dispute over the scope and meaning of the claim 1 language, “wherein adjacent mutually perpendicular dipole arms . . . are fed therebetween” (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-002980 Application 16/060,545 4 An obviousness determination necessarily hinges on the proper interpretation of a claim. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994). During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Specification refers to Figures 2-a and 2-b when describing the feeding mode between two adjacent mutually perpendicular dipole arms. See Spec. 6:25-8:14. For convenience, Figure 2-b is reproduced below. Figure 2-b, above, “shows a side view of a low band dipole . . . [that] includes four dipole arms 201, which are horizontally and mutually perpendicularly arranged in a ‘+’ shape.” Spec. 7:4-7. Feed line 207 includes feed line section d1 extending vertically upward from feed point 202 on a first dipole arm 201 and is parallel to feed line section d4 on a second, adjacent dipole arm 201. Id. at 8:6-7. Feed line sections d1 and d4 are connected by feed line sections d2 Appeal 2021-002980 Application 16/060,545 5 and d3 located, respectively, on the first and second dipole arms 201. See id. at 8:4-5; Fig. 2-b. A similar feed line is present at the same corresponding positions on each set of “adjacent two mutually perpendicular dipole arms so as to form a +/- 45 degree-polarized antenna dipole.” Id. at 7:10-13. Based on the plain meaning of the claim language, as well as the above Specification disclosure, we determine that the claim 1 recitation,“fed therebetween,” requires that the feed to two directly adjacent dipole arms is coupled or otherwise combined. The Appellant has persuasively argued that this limitation is not met by the prior art structures in which the feed to each dipole arm merely passes through a central region between the four dipole arms. See supra p. 3. Because the Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion as to claim 1, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 1 or its dependent claims 2-7. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3 103 Wansch, Jo 1-3 1, 4, 5 103 Boryssenko, Jo 1, 4, 5 1, 6, 7 103 Lee, Jo 1, 6, 7 Overall Outcome: 1-7 REVERSED