Appeal No. 2001-1536
Application 08/428,256
EA13). We agree. Appellants have not said what claim language
they are relying on. Claim 10 only requires that the feed wire
is connected to the capacity top, which is shown by conductor 20
attached to a plate 22, and that a plurality of conductor wires
connect the capacity top to the ground plane, which is shown by
conductors 18. The capacity top can be all the plates, since an
integral plate is not claimed, or can be just the plate 22, since
claim 10 does not describe how the conductor wires connect the
capacity top to the ground plane.
Third, it is argued that Goubau does not disclose, teach, or
suggest the dimensions for achieving the monopole radiation as
claimed and the present invention has a radiation yield which
depends on a horizontal (rather than vertical) extension of the
capacitive plate which allows resonance (Br9; Br10-11).
Goubau is directed to monopole antennas. Again, appellants
have not said what claim language distinguishes claim 10 from the
structure in Goubau. It appears that appellants are relying on
differences between the disclosed invention and Goubau.
Fourth, it is argued that contrary to the Goubau structure,
the height of the top plate in the present invention has no
effect on yield (Br11).
Again, appellants have not shown how the claim language
structurally defines over Goubau or requires a top plate whose
height has no effect on yield.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007