Appeal No. 2001-1536
Application 08/428,256
dimensions of the rectangular parallel plate (table) are
L1=0.2180 and L2=0.1880 (col. 9, line 26), whereas claim 10
recites that "the dimensions of the capacity top are roughly 8/8
by 8/8," i.e., 0.138 by 0.138. The examiner states that the
specific size of the plate is "an obvious design choice dependent
upon feeder impedance, impedance matching, radiation pattern
desired, etc." (FR2) and concludes that selection of "such a top
hat dimension is well within the ordinary level of skill of those
employed in the antenna art" (FR2).
Initially, we note that appellant does not contest the
examiner's conclusion that selecting the size of the capacitor
top would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary
skill in the art and, so, has not shown error. In addition, it
is noted that the recitation that the dimensions are "roughly"
8/8 by 8/8 allows a lot of leeway which would encompass or be
made obvious by the disclosed size of 0.21 8 by 0.188.
Appellant argues (Br4):
[T]here are several important features of the presently
claimed monopole wire-plate antenna which would not be
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by the
disclosure found in Nishikawa. For example, both dimensions
"L1" and "L2" of the top plate of the antenna disclosed by
Nishikawa are important to the operation of the antenna. In
addition, currents flow within the top plate of the Nishikawa
antenna. In contrast, in the presently claimed invention it
is the surface of the plate which is important for enhanced
performance, not dimensions L1 and L2. Moreover, no current
flows through the plate in the present invention. In
Appellant's invention the current flows through the ground
and the feed wires which are coupled. In fact, it is the
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007