SATIUS HOLDING, INC. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2021

2021005257 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2021)

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.
90/014,378 09/19/2019 6711385 031179.00179-US00 2111
7590 12/28/2021
JEFFREY H. PRICE, KRAMER LEVIN
NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036
EXAMINER
CRAVER, CHARLES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2021 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 SATIUS HOLDING, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge, CONCURRING.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306, Patent Owner1 appeals from
the final rejection of claim 1. Claims 2–10, 12–17, and 19–50 are not
subject to reexamination. Claims 11 and 18 have been indicated to be
allowable. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Reexamination Proceedings
A request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,711,385 B2
(“the ’385 patent”) was filed on September 19, 2019, and assigned
Reexamination Control No. 90/014,378. The ’385 patent, titled “Coupler for
Wireless Communications,” issued March 23, 2004 to Charles Abraham,
based on Application No. 09/610,728, filed July 6, 2000.

Claimed Subject Matter
The claims are directed to the communication of electric or
electromagnetic signals over air, which includes a transmitter or receiver and
a coupler. (Abstract.)

Related Litigation
The ’385 patent has also been asserted in Satius Holding. Inc. v.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al., No. 1-18-cv-00850 (D. Del. Jun. 5,

1 Patent Owner identifies the real party in interest as Satius Holding, Inc.,
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

3
2018.) (Appeal Br. 2.) The case has been stayed pending the outcome of
this reexamination proceeding. (Id.)

The Claims
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and is reproduced
below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A communications apparatus for transmitting
electric or electromagnetic signals over air, the air having a
characteristic impedance, the communications apparatus
comprising:
a transmitter having an output impedance, said
transmitter for transmitting the electric or electromagnetic
signals at a preselected frequency; and
a coupler connected to the transmitter, said coupler
comprising a transformer having a non-magnetic core, said
transformer communicating the electric or electromagnetic
signals to the air, said coupler matching the output impedance
of the transmitter to the characteristic impedance of the air.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Tran US 6,184,833 B1 Feb. 6, 2001
Mourant et al. US 6,396,362 B1 May 28, 2002
Abraham (“Abraham ’987”) US 6,407,987 B1 June 18, 2002
Abraham (“Abraham ’980”) WO 98/40980 Sept. 17, 1998

Patent Owner also relied upon the following in rebuttal to the
Examiner’s rejections:
Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Dr. Stuart A. Long,
dated April 24, 2020.

Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

4
The Rejections
A. Claim 1 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of
commonly owned Abraham ’987 and Tran.
B. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Abraham ’980.
C. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abraham ’980 and Tran.2

OPINION
Double Patenting Rejection
We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (Appeal Br. 15) that
the Examiner improperly combined claim 13 of commonly owned Abraham
’987 and Tran.
The Examiner found that dual strip antenna 400 of Tran, as illustrated
in Figure 4, corresponds to the limitation “said coupler matching the output
impedance of the transmitter to the characteristic impedance of the air.”
(Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 5–6.) The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would
have been obvious . . . to add such a feature to claim [13] of the ’987 Patent”

2 The Examiner has withdrawn: (i) the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tran and Patent Owner’s admitted prior
art (Ans. 10); (ii) the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Abraham ’980 and Mourant (id.); (iii) the rejection of
claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abraham
’980, Tran, and Mourant (id.); and (iv) the rejection of claim 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abraham ’980, Mourant, and
Tran (Adv. Act. 8–9).
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

5
because “Tran discloses the utility of using an impedance matching system
for communication over air” and “[s]uch would be an example of combining
known elements by known methods, wherein in combination each element
performs the same function as it does separately, yielding predictable results,
as Patent Owner . . . notes that the coupler of the ’987 Patent requires no
modification whatsoever to perform the claimed function.” (Final Act. 9–
10; see also Ans. 6.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning for combination.
A review of the original prosecution history for the ’385 patent,
indicates that Patent Owner argued the following:
Claims 1–50 were rejected for allegedly failing to
disclose the best mode contemplated by the inventor.
Specifically, the Examiner states that it is unclear how the same
coupler that is used for matching a transmitter/receiver with a
power line, as described in U.S. Patent No. 6,104,707, can also
be used for matching with the air impedence [sic].
. . . .
Page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 7 [of the originally
filed Specification for ’385 patent], among other text portions,
describes how the coupler operates in the present invention:
. . . .
As in the ’258 Application, the coupler of the
present invention preferably has two coaxial solenoids or
air-coils of different diameter with primary and
secondary inductances L1 and L2 respectively. Both L1
and L2 are inductively and capacitively coupled creating
an air-core transformer. Preferably, the air-gap is filled
with resin, which reduces inductive loading effects from
the coupler secondary to the primary by using the
capacitance created in the air core transformer. The size
of the gap is selected to reduce inductive loading effects
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

6
from the coupler secondary to the primary. A coupling
capacitor, Ceq, is also preferably provided.
. . . .
As described above, the coupler in the ’707 patent can be used
for matching with air impedence [sic] using the same principle
of operation as the coupler is used in the ’707 patent for
matching to the power line. The coupler in the present
invention matches automatically. Just like it does when
matching to the power line. Contrary to the Examiner’s
understanding, the coupler in the ’707 patent can, in fact, be
used in the present invention without any modification.
(Response to Office Action 3–5, filed Jun. 18, 2003 (emphases added).)
In addition, the ’385 patent further discloses the following:
The primary winding 20 of the air-core transformer 14 is
connected in series with Ceq1 16 and the antenna 18. The
primary winding is designed to match the most common
characteristic impedance of the air where the wireless
transmitter/receiver will be used.
(Col. 4, ll. 29–32 (emphasis added).)
In the context of the entirety of Patent Owner’s rebuttal arguments
and the entirety of the ’385 patent, Patent Owner’s statement “the coupler in
the ’707 patent can, in fact, be used in the present invention without any
modification” is an indication that a generic “coupler” can have certain
structural elements altered (e.g., size of the air-gap, optional use of resin in
air-gap, optional use of a capacitor, or primary winding) to match the
impedance of air. In other words, Patent Owner’s statement cannot be
characterized as an admission that: (i) a coupler for matching the impedance
of an electrical line is equivalent to or interchangeable with (ii) a coupler for
matching the impedance of the air, without any modifications.
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

7
Therefore, the Examiner’s articulated reason for incorporating dual
strip antenna 400 of Tran into claim 13 of commonly-owed Abraham ’987—
“combining known elements by known methods, wherein in combination
each element performs the same function as it does separately, yielding
predictable results”—lacks rational unpinning because the Examiner’s
finding that “Patent Owner . . . notes that the coupler of the ’987 Patent
requires no modification whatsoever to perform the claimed function” is
erroneous. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, as
follows:
Nor would it have been obvious to modify Claim 13 of
Abraham ’987 with Tran. While Tran does indeed disclose
“using an impedance matching system for communication over
air,” that impedance matching system utilized the antenna itself
as the impedance matching device. There is simply no
motivation to modify Claim 13 of Abraham ’987 such that its
claimed power-line coupler would be modified to match the
characteristic impedance of air. Indeed, the Examiner is
respectfully mistaken that “the coupler of the ’987 Patent
requires no modification whatsoever to perform the claimed
function.” As the ’385 Patent explicitly discloses, that while
the overall structure of the coupler disclosed in Abraham ’987
requires no modification, the ’385 Patent does require that the
primary winding be “designed to match the most common
characteristic impedance of the air where the wireless
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

8
transmitter/receiver will be used,” which is a modification
contemplated nowhere in either Claim 13 of Abraham ’987 (or
its specification) or Tran.
(Appeal Br. 15 (citations omitted).)
Thus, the Examiner has improperly combined claim 13 of commonly
owned Abraham ’987 and Tran to reject independent claim 1 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.

§ 102 Rejection—Abraham ’980
We are also persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (Appeal Br. 16–
17) that Abraham ’980 does not disclose the limitation “transformer
communicating the electric or electromagnetic signals to the air,” as recited
in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that transformer 36 of Abraham ’980, as
illustrated in Figure 7, corresponds to the limitation “transformer
communicating the electric or electromagnetic signals to the air.” (Final
Act. 11.) In particular, the Examiner found that “the difference between the
[Abraham ’980] reference and the claim comes down to the functional
language, namely the transformer ‘. . . communicating the electric or
electromagnetic signals to the air.’” (Ans. 12–13.) We do not agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
Independent claim 1 recites “transformer communicating the electric
or electromagnetic signals to the air.” In the specific context at issue in this
decision, we construe the claim language “communicating the electric or
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

9
electromagnetic signals to the air” as a functional limitation that defines the
“transformer” by what it does, rather than structurally. In re Swinehart, 439
F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971) (holding that functional language in a patent
claim is “an attempt . . . to define something . . . by what it does rather than
by what it is”). Thus, to anticipate, transformer 36 of Abraham ’980 must
have the capability of “communicating the electric or electromagnetic
signals to the air.”
Abraham ’980 relates to an “apparatus capable of simultaneously
transmitting and receiving digital data signals both at high rates and over
long distances through power lines and power line transformers, including
AC, DC, coaxial cables, and twisted pair lines.” (P. 1, ll. 16–20.) Figure 6
of Abraham ’980 illustrates power line communications apparatus 10, which
includes: (i) “first coupling means 14, first transmitter 16, first receiver 18,
and first modulator/demodulator means 20”; and (ii) “at a second location
along the power-line 12, second coupling means 22, second transmitter 24,
second receiver 26, and second modulator/demodulator means 28.” (P. 22,
ll. 19–29.) Moreover, Figure 7 of Abraham ’980 illustrates first coupling
means 14, which is coupled to a pair of power-lines 12 (p. 23, ll. 13–17), and
includes first serial LC circuit 30 having first air core transformer 36 (p. 26,
ll. 24–25). Abraham ’980 explains the following:
The other practical advantage of the air-core coupler is
that the transmitted signal level into the power line or electrical
line is about the same at every outlet (time and location
independent) due to the low resistive matching to the electrical
line characteristic impedance at a pre-selected carrier
frequency. Consequently, a low radiation emission level is the
same from every outlet as well. Effecting a low radiation
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

10
emission level is very important to meet the FCC 15.31(d)
requirements for transmissions above 1.7 MHz.
(P. 18, ll. 10–19.)
Thus, while Figure 6 of Abraham ’980 illustrates that first coupling
means 14 includes air core transformer 36, Abraham ’980 also explains that
such air-core coupler results in “a low radiation emission level is the same
from every outlet” in compliance with “FCC [Rule] 15.31(d) requirements
for transmissions above 1.7 MHz.” Accordingly, because air core
transformer 36 of Abraham ’980 results in low radiation emission in
compliance with FCC rules, such air core transformer 36 does not have the
capability of “communicating the electric or electromagnetic signals to the
air.” Thus, Abraham ’980 does not anticipate.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, as
follows:
Abraham ’980 does not anticipate claim 1 of the ’385
Patent because it does not disclose . . . “transformer
communicating the electric or electromagnetic signals to the air
. . . ”
. . .
In fact, Abraham [’980] is explicit that it was “very
important” that its communication apparatus be designed so as
not to communicate signals to the air, in order “to meet the FCC
13.3 l(d) requirements for transmissions above 1.7 MHz.”
(Appeal Br. 16–17.)
Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that Abraham ’980
discloses the limitation “transformer communicating the electric or
electromagnetic signals to the air,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

11
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

§ 103 Rejection—Abraham ’980 and Tran
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abraham ’980 and Tran for the
same reasons as discussed above for 35 U.S.C. § 102.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 Obviousness-type
Double Patenting
1
1 102(b) Abraham ’980 1
1 103(a) Abraham ’980, Tran 1
Overall
Outcome
1

REVERSED

Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SATIUS HOLDING, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge, CONCURRING.

I concur with the majority’s decision to reverse the Examiner’s
decision to reject claim 1, but write separately to underscore the breadth of
that claim and, in particular, additional issues for the Examiner to consider
in light of this breadth and additional authorities that were not made of
record previously, particularly regarding obviousness over their teachings
and suggestions in light of the knowledge of ordinarily skilled artisans.
I leave these questions for the Examiner to consider, for the Examiner
is in the best position to assess these issues and their technical merits,
including facts and technical aspects articulated in the cited authorities, as
well as the suggestions and inferences those of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably draw from these authorities, particularly given the relatively high
level of skill in the art, namely that commensurate with (1) a bachelor’s
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

2
degree in electrical engineering or related field, and (2) two or more years of
industry experience and/or an advanced degree in electrical engineering or
related field as Dr. Long indicates in paragraph 10 of his declaration dated
April 24, 2020.
I emphasize this point, for the Board’s primary role on appeal is to
review the Examiner’s adverse decision for error as was done here—not to
conduct its own separate examination of the claims. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed. rev. 10.2019 June 2020).
That said, claim 1 strikes me as very broad. In essence, the claim
recites a communication apparatus with two main elements: (1) a
transmitter, and (2) a “coupler.” The transmitter is recited at a high level of
generality, whose elements, including an output impedance, are inherent to
radio frequency transmitters used in two-way communications over radio
frequencies, such as transmitters used in amateur (“ham”) radio or citizen’s
band applications. See Lew McCoy, LEW MCCOY ON ANTENNAS 34 (1994)
(“McCoy”) (noting that 50 ohms is the normal output impedance of a radio
transmitter).
The “coupler” is likewise recited at a high level of generality. All
claim 1 requires in this regard is that the “coupler” (1) be connected to the
transmitter; (2) comprise a transformer having a non-magnetic core, where
the transformer communicates the transmitted electric or electromagnetic
signals to the air; and (3) match the transmitter’s output impedance to the
air’s characteristic impedance.
Regarding the latter element, the Examiner’s finding that air or “free
space” inherently has a characteristic impedance of approximately 377 ohms
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

3
(Ω) (Final Act. 11) is undisputed. This undisputed finding is reasonable and,
indeed, confirmed via mathematical derivation involving free space’s
inherent properties, namely the square root of the ratio of free space’s
permeability and permittivity. See Joseph J. Carr & George W. Hippisley,
PRACTICAL ANTENNA HANDBOOK 95 (5th ed. 2012) (deriving 377 Ω as the
impedance of free space in Equation 3.23).3 Accord 47 C.F.R. § 73.1030(b)
(noting that power flux density calculations are based on an assumed free
space characteristic impedance of 376.7 ohms).
Therefore, to satisfy claim 1, the prior art must teach or suggest a
“coupler” that, among other things, matches the recited transmitter’s output
impedance, which is normally 50 Ω, to air’s characteristic impedance,
namely 377 Ω. Notably, neither the ’385 patent nor the ’707 patent referred
to in column 2, lines 54 to 58 of the ’385 patent defines the term “coupler”
clearly and unambiguously to limit its interpretation to such a definition.
Although the ’385 patent’s description informs one’s understanding of the
recited “coupler” in the context of the disclosed invention, this description is
not to be imported into the claim. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often
describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly
warned against confining the claims to those embodiments. . . . [C]laims
may embrace different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific

3 Although this reference does not qualify as prior art to the claimed
invention since it published in 2012, I nonetheless cite it here merely to
show the mathematical basis for the Examiner’s undisputed finding that the
characteristic impedance of free space (and therefore “air” under the
Examiner’s finding) is 377 Ω.
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

4
embodiments in the specification.”) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Claim 1 does, however, require that the “coupler” not only be
connected to the transmitter, but also comprise a transformer with a non-
magnetic core, where the transformer communicates the transmitted electric
or electromagnetic signals to the air. I emphasize “to the air” here because
that is the ultimate destination of the transmitted signals. But the claim does
not preclude communicating those signals to intermediate destinations, so
long as the signals are ultimately communicated to the air. I emphasize this
point, particularly given the open-ended “comprising” language in the
claim’s preamble that does not preclude additional unrecited elements. See
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the
named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still
form a construct within the scope of the claim.” (citation omitted)).
Therefore, nothing in the claim precludes the coupler’s transformer from
communicating the transmitted electric or electromagnetic signals to the air
via intermediate components or elements.
In any event, the structure and function of the recited “coupler” strikes
me as strikingly similar to that of impedance matching networks commonly
used to couple radio transmitters to transmission lines. These “couplers,”
also known as “Transmatches,” transform an unknown load at the
transmitter end of a transmission line, such as a coaxial line, to the normal
output impedance of the transmitter, namely 50 Ω. See McCoy, at 34. My
emphasis on the term “transform” underscores this “coupler’s” essential
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

5
transformation function, namely transforming a load that can vary from a
fraction of an ohm to several thousand ohms to 50 ohms. See id.
Such coupling transformers are not limited to Transmatches with their
inductive and capacitive circuitry, but also include transmission lines
themselves, and even antennas. See Les Moxon, HF ANTENNAS FOR ALL
LOCATIONS 33–34 (1995) (“Moxon”) (“Lines as transformers” section of the
“Feeding the Antenna” chapter); see also id. at 37 (“Antennas as
transmission lines” section).
As Moxon explains, transmission lines, also known as “feeders,” are
used to carry power from the transmitter to the antenna, two forms of which
are balanced and coaxial lines as shown in Moxon’s Figure 4.1. See Moxon,
at 29.
Notably, in the “Lines as transformers” section, Moxon describes how
to contrive lines having a desired characteristic impedance by connecting
multiple lines together—each having its own characteristic impedance—to
arrive at a desired impedance. See id. at 33–36. This technique is shown in
Moxon’s Figure 4.12 with different examples showing how lines of different
characteristic impedances can be obtained via different configurations and
connections. See id. at 36. Moxon further notes that “[a]pproximations to
other likely impedance values can be similarly achieved using pairs of lines
available on the market or readily constructed.” Id. at 34. Notably, Moxon
adds that “[i]f necessary, several sections of line having characteristic
impedances, Z01, Z02, Z03 etc. can be used to obtain a required transformation
in several stages.” Id.
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

6
Given these techniques, along with the ’385 patent’s description in
column 5, lines 10 to 22 and Appellant’s admission that a piece of coaxial
cable can be used as an air-core transformer (see Appeal Br. 17), the
question is whether it would have been obvious to ordinarily skilled artisans
to design such a “coupler” such that it matched the transmitter’s output
impedance, namely 50 ohms, to air’s characteristic impedance, namely 377
ohms, to satisfy claim 1. In other words, given the teachings and
suggestions of these authorities, would it have been obvious for an ordinarily
skilled artisan, namely a person with (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical
engineering or related field, and (2) two or more years of industry
experience and/or an advanced degree in electrical engineering or related
field as Dr. Long indicates in paragraph 10 of his declaration, to match a 50
ohm transmitter to a 377 ohm impedance?
I leave this question to the Examiner to consider in light of these
authorities, but reiterate McCoy’s point that a load at a transmitter can vary
from a fraction of an ohm to several thousand ohms—a range that certainly
includes 377 ohms. See McCoy, at 34; see also Moxon, at 36–38 (referring
to various transmission line impedances in Figures 4.12 to 4.14). And
leaving aside Appellant’s admission and the ’385 patent’s teachings in
column 5, lines 10 to 22 that a piece of coaxial cable can be used as an air-
core transformer (see Appeal Br. 17), other types of couplers, such as
matching networks or “Transmatches,” use transformers with inductors that
apparently have non-magnetic cores as claimed. See McCoy, at 33–44
(showing and describing various transformers and inductors); see also Craig
LaBarge, A Simple and Flexible Tuner for QRP, WB3GCK Amateur Radio
Appeal 2021-005257
Reexamination Control 90/014,378
Patent 6,711,385 B1

7
Project Notebook, originally published in “The Five Watter,” Michigan QRP
Club Newsletter (June 1996) (showing various antenna tuner designs using a
capacitor and inductor, where the inductor is made of 40 turns of enameled
copper wire on a plastic 35mm film canister).
As noted above, I join the majority in reversing the Examiner’s
decision to reject claim 1, but leave the above-noted issues for the Examiner
to consider, for the Examiner is in the best position to assess these issues and
their technical merits, including facts and technical aspects articulated in the
cited authorities, as well as the suggestions and inferences those of ordinary
skill in the art would reasonably draw from these authorities, particularly
given the relatively high level of skill in the art.

PATENT OWNER:
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
NEW YORK, NY 10036

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
ONE CITYCENTER
850 TENTH STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4956