Appeal No. 2001-1536
Application 08/428,256
current within the aforesaid wires, a current which, as noted
above, is missing in Nishikawa, which generates the monopolar
radiation in the presently claimed antenna.
The examiner responds that these arguments do not
demonstrate that appellants' structure operates in a different
way than Nishikawa and, in any case, are not directed to the
claimed invention (EA4-5). We agree. The arguments fail to
point out what language in claim 10 is not shown by Nishikawa
and, thus, do not point out error in the rejection.
Appellant argues (Br4-5):
Still further, the height "H" of the device disclosed
in Nishikawa is approximately 80/9, whereas in the antenna
in the present invention, the height is about 8/20.
Furthermore, in contrast to the disclosure of Nishikawa, the
antenna of the present invention does not utilize a vertical
plate such as that disclosed by the reference to extend the
feed wire for adapting the antenna. Additionally, the
radius of the ground wires of the antenna in the instant
case is significantly smaller than that of the wires used in
the Nishikawa device, whereas the diameter of the ground
wire is of the same magnitude as the width "L1" of the top.
As none of these distinctions are suggested by the
disclosure of the Nishikawa reference, the claims to the
present invention are not obvious thereover.
The examiner responds that the height, the connection of the
feed wire to the capacity top, and the diameter of the conductor
wires are not claimed and, thus, do not distinguish the subject
matter of claim 10 over Nishikawa (EA5-6). We agree with the
examiner. The height of the capacitor top above the ground plane
is not claimed. Claim 10 recites a "capacity top adapted to be
directly connected to a generator or to a receiver via a feed
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007