Appeal No. 96-1663
Application 08/046,240
arm (7) in each dipole antenna and a matching leg (17) are
configured mechani- cally and electrically in one piece of a
homogeneous material.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as
follows:
Scharlau 2,130,033 Sept. 13,
1938
Watts 2,973,517 Feb. 28,
1961
Kuecken 2,978,703 Apr. 4,
1961
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Scharlau. Claims 2 through 6, 11 through
15 and 19 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Scharlau in view of Watts. Claims 8
through 10, 16 through 18 and 23 through 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scharlau in
view of Watts and Kuecken.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 2
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on April 20, 1995.
Appel- lant filed a reply appeal brief on September 20, 1995.
The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter mailed October
17, 1995 that the reply brief has been entered and considered
but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007