Appeal No. 95-1186
Application No. 08/051,797
17, 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is improper and will
not be sustained.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1 through 15 and
17 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
These claims require, in various ways, a certain
relationship between the spacing between adjacent groups of
patches and the spacing between patches within each group.
More particularly, the spacing between patches of adjacent
groups exceeds the spacing between patches within a group.
The examiner admits that while Wood may show a group of
patches (in Figure 5), it does not disclose an array of such
groups. Therefore, since Wood fails to disclose or suggest an
array of groups of patches, it does not, and cannot, disclose
or suggest any relationship between the spacing between
patches of adjacent groups and the spacing between patches
within a group.
The examiner relies on Coe for the teaching of arranging
groups of patches into an array, pointing to Figure 8 of the
patent to show an array of antenna elements. The examiner
concludes [page 4 of the principal answer] that it would have
been obvious to “pluralize the basic radiating group of Fig. 5
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007