Appeal No. 2001-1536
Application 08/428,256
Fifth, it is argued that Goubau discloses two duplicated
antennas and the series LC circuit of Goubau and the parallel LC
circuit of the presently claimed invention have opposite
impedance behavior as a function of frequency (Br11). It is
argued that there is no disclosure or suggestion for achieving a
monopole state by making the dimensions of the monopole top
sufficiently small relative to a working wavelength of the
antenna whereby the antenna operates by monopolar radiation at
the working frequency (Br11).
Again, appellants have not shown how the claim language
defines over Goubau. Claim 10 is very broad and monopolar
radiation is the only operation recited. Goubau is a monopole
antenna and it is not stated why Goubau would cease to function
as a monopole antenna depending on the size of the capacity top.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that appellants
have failed to show error in the examiner's conclusion of
obviousness. The rejection of claims 10 and 2-4 over Goubau is
sustained.
Nishikawa or Reggia or Goubau in view of Shibano
The examiner finds that Figs. 8(a)-(d) of Shibano teaches
the use of plural capacity plates stacked above the other (FR4).
The examiner finds (FR4): "Note in Fig. 8(d) that the feed cable
26, which passes through the ground plane 22, has a feed wire
- 12 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007