Appeal No. 2001-1536
Application 08/428,256
applied to the posts 86 (the inductor) and the capacitor 90 in
parallel. This is a different electrical configuration than the
disclosed antenna and, therefore, we cannot infer that Reggia
operates in the same way. While it is still possible that Reggia
operates as a monopole antenna, we only find that there is not
enough factual evidence to make this finding. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 10, 2, and 3 over Reggia is reversed.
Goubau
Goubau discloses a monopole antenna. The examiner reads
claim 10 on the antenna shown in Fig. 5 ( see FR3). The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious "to employ the size of
top hat claimed as desired in order to provide a specific pattern
and system impedance" (FR3).
Appellants argue five distinctions over Goubau (Br10-11).
The examiner responds that the only modification necessary
to Goubau is the size of the capacitor plates, the selection of
which the examiner finds to be within the level of ordinary skill
in the art (EA11). The examiner generally finds the arguments
unsupported by claim language.
We agree with the examiner that appellant has not shown
error in the rejection over Goubau. In particular, appellants
have not shown that the limitations of claim 10 (as opposed to
the disclosure) distinguish over the structure in Goubau.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007