Google LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2022

2021003614 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 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. 16/260,399 01/29/2019 Jiang Zhu GOOGLE 3.0F-2559 3407 78792 7590 03/14/2022 GOOGLE Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP 20 Commerce Drive Cranford, NJ 07016 EXAMINER CHAN, WEI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2844 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2022 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): eOfficeAction@lernerdavid.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIANG ZHU, PAUL BIGGINS, and ZHEYU WANG Appeal 2021-003614 Application 16/260,399 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, N WHITNEY WILSON, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21. Appeal Br. 1, 8-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed January 29, 2019 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action entered August 25, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed January 25, 2021 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer entered March 18, 2021 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed May 18, 2021 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Google LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2021-003614 Application 16/260,399 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to an antenna design for a wearable computing device including a smartwatch. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br. 25, Claims App.): 1. An antenna, comprising: an inner trace, the inner trace having a first end and a second end[]; an outer trace, the outer trace having a first end and a second end, the first end of the outer trace positioned adjacent to the second end of the inner trace, and the second end of the outer trace coupled to a feed for the antenna; wherein the inner trace and the outer trace are positioned along a periphery of a wearable device and coupled to a ground; and wherein the antenna is a coupled loop antenna. Claims 6 and 12 are also independent, and each recite a first antenna having an outer trace and an inner trace, and that the first antenna is a coupled loop antenna. Appeal Br. 25-27, Claims App. Appeal 2021-003614 Application 16/260,399 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Jung et al. (“Jung”) US 2016/0254587 A1 Sep. 1, 2016 Choi et al. (“Choi”) US 2017/0133752 A1 May 11, 2017 Lepe et al. (“Lepe”) US 2018/0083342 A1 Mar. 22, 2018 Naka et al. (“Naka”) US 2019/0265655 A1 Aug. 29, 2019 Wang et al. (“Wang”) US 2019/0305424 A1 Oct. 3, 2019 Li et al. (“Li”) US 2019/0350319 A1 Nov. 21, 2019 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 4, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Naka and Wang. Final Act. 11-14. 2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Naka, Wang, and Choi. Final Act. 14-15. 3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Naka, Wang, and Lepe. Final Act. 15-16. 4. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Naka, Lepe, and Wang. Final Act. 17-20. 5. Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Naka, Lepe, Wang, and Choi. Final Act. 21- 22. 6. Claims 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi. Final Act. 22-26. Appeal 2021-003614 Application 16/260,399 4 7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Wang. Final Act. 26. 8. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Wang. Final Act. 26-27. 9. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Jung. Final Act. 11-14. OPINION We confine our discussion to claims 1 and 12, which is sufficient to decide this appeal. Rejection 1-Claim 1 The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Naka and Wang, the Examiner found, inter alia, that Naka discloses dipole antenna (10b) and feeder electrode (11) corresponding to the antenna having an inner trace recited in claim 1. Final Act. 11-12, citing Naka, Fig. 19. The Examiner found Naka discloses dipole antenna (10a) corresponding to the outer trace recited in claim 1. Id. The Examiner found Naka does not disclose the antenna is a coupled loop antenna in Figure 19. Id. at 12. The Examiner found Naka discloses a coupled loop antenna in Figure 20. Id. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have modified the embodiment depicted in Figure 19 of Naka with the embodiment depicted in Figure 20 of Naka to form a coupled loop antenna to increase reception sensitivity of radio waves by disposing the feeder electrode on the back of the watch glass as disclosed by Naka. Id., citing Naka ¶ 103. Appeal 2021-003614 Application 16/260,399 5 The Examiner relied on Wang for the positioning of the inner trace and outer trace along the periphery of a wearable device and the feed and ground coupling arrangement recited in claim 1. Final Act. 12-13. Appellant’s Arguments Appellant argues claim 1 recites the presence of one antenna with two components (the inner trace and outer trace), whereas Naka discloses two separate antennas (10a and 10b) and a feeder electrode 11, which is not part of the antennas. Appeal Br. 9-13. Appellant contends the Examiner’s interpretation of Naka, in particular Figure 19, ignores Naka’s disclosure. Id. at 12. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is inconsistent because it interprets feeder electrode 11 in Naka as an inner trace, and then relies on Wang for feed point 303. Id. at 13-14. Appellant contends Naka does not disclose a loop antenna formed from an inner and outer trace, rather, Naka discloses antennas 10a and 10b are integrated to form continuous C-shaped structure 10c in Figure 20. Id. at 15-16. Discussion We are persuaded that the Examiner’s position that Naka discloses or renders obvious an antenna including an inner trace and outer trace as recited in claim 1 is not sufficiently supported. Specifically, the Examiner expressly relies on Naka’s feeder electrode 11 as corresponding to a portion of the inner trace recited in claim 1. Final Act. 11-12; Ans. 3-5, 8. However, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain why in view of Naka’s disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted a “feeder electrode” as part of an “inner trace” of an antenna. Appeal 2021-003614 Application 16/260,399 6 Naka expressly discloses that the feeder electrode and antenna are separate components. Naka ¶ 102 (“In the example of FIG. 19, the antennas 10a and 10b are not adjacent to each other, and the feeder electrode 11 includes a first area adjacent to the antenna 10a, a second area adjacent to the antenna 10b, and a third area connecting the first area to the second area.”); Fig. 19; see also ¶¶ 9, 73, 75. Indeed, Naka discloses the feeder electrode 11 provides an unbalancing signal from the receiving circuit 22 to the antennas 10a and 10b. Id. at ¶ 75, Fig. 3. Further, we cannot reconcile the Examiner’s positions in the rejection with the Examiner’s statement in the Answer that “Appellant has incorrectly interpreted Naka teaching the feeder being the antenna.” Ans. 6. The Examiner interpreted Naka’s feeder electrode 11 as part of the inner trace of the antenna recited in claim 1 as discussed above, which is inconsistent with Naka’s disclosure. Thus, the Examiner’s position that Naka discloses “the first end of the outer trace positioned adjacent to the second end of the inner trace” of the antenna as recited in claim 1 is not sufficiently supported by Naka. The Examiner’s further reliance on the loop antenna disclosed in Figure 20 of Naka (see Naka ¶ 103) does not sufficiently make up for this deficiency. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 4, 20, and 21, dependent therefrom. Rejection 6-Claim 12 Claim 12, although directed to a system including a first and second antenna, is similar to claim 1 in that it recites the first antenna is “a coupled loop antenna having an inner trace and an outer trace . . . the inner trace Appeal 2021-003614 Application 16/260,399 7 having a first end positioned adjacent to the second end of the outer trace.” Appeal Br. 26-27, Claims App. The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 12 as unpatentable over Choi, the Examiner found Choi discloses a system having a first antenna and a second antenna as substantially recited in claim 12. Final Act. 22-23. In particular, the Examiner found Choi discloses the first antenna is a coupled loop antenna having an outer trace (Fig. 7C, outside of 721) and an inner trace (inner perimeter of 721). Id. at 23-24; Ans. 11-13; annotated versions of Choi’s Figs. 7A, 7C. Appellant’s Arguments Appellant argues, inter alia, that Choi does not disclose a first antenna having an inner and outer trace. Appeal Br. 18-19. Appellant contends the Examiner has relied upon drawing lines of a unitary structure in Choi in order to define the inner and outer traces of the first antenna, which is not supported by the written description in Choi. Id. Discussion We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Choi discloses a first antenna 728, that includes a first conductive member 721a, a ground part 726, and a feeding part 727. Choi, ¶ 164, Fig. 7C. Choi discloses the antenna may include a housing 721. Choi ¶ 162. We find no disclosure in Choi that the first antenna may have an inner trace and an outer trace with adjacent ends having the arrangement recited in claim 12. In this regard, the Appeal 2021-003614 Application 16/260,399 8 Examiner cited paragraphs 156-160 in Choi and provided an annotated version of Choi’s Figure 7A to allegedly show the first end of the inner trace and the second end of the outer trace. Final Act. 23-24; Ans. 12-13. The Examiner’s annotated version of Choi’s Figure 7A is reproduced below from the Examiner’s Answer (p. 7). The above drawing is an annotated version of Figure 7A of Choi with two arrow and text boxes reading “the second end of the outer trace” and “the inner trace having a first end positioned.” The Examiner’s annotations appear to merely identify the ends of two conductive members 701b and 701c separated by cut-off portion 703. See Choi ¶ 157. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how such annotations and citations to Choi identify a coupled loop antenna with an inner and outer trace where the inner trace has a first end positioned adjacent Appeal 2021-003614 Application 16/260,399 9 to a second end of the outer trace as recited in claim 12 particularly where Choi itself is silent as to such features. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s application of Choi to claim 12 is not sufficiently supported by Choi’s disclosure. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, and claims 13, 15, 17, and 18, dependent therefrom. Rejections 2-5 and 7-9 Regarding independent claim 6, the subject of Rejection 4, the Examiner relies on similar positions with respect to Naka as discussed above for claim 1 in order to meet the recitation in claim 6 of “the inner trace having a first end positioned adjacent to the second end of the outer trace.” Final Act. 17-18. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 for similar reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-11, 14, 16, and 19, the subject of Rejections 2-5 and 7-9, depend either directly or indirectly from independent claims 1, 6, and 12. The additionally cited prior art does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above with respect to the independent claims. Accordingly, we reverse Rejections 2-5 and 7-9 for similar reasons as discussed above for Rejections 1 and 6. Appeal 2021-003614 Application 16/260,399 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 20, 21 103 Naka, Wang 1, 4, 20, 21 2, 3 103 Naka, Wang, Choi 2, 3 5 103 Naka, Wang, Lepe 5 6, 7 103 Naka, Lepe, Wang 6, 7 8-11 103 Naka, Lepe, Wang, Choi 8-11 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 103 Choi 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 14 103 Choi, Wang 14 16 103 Choi, Li 16 19 103 Choi, Jung 19 Overall Outcome 1-21 REVERSED