Appeal No. 2001-1536
Application 08/428,256
suitably selecting the width of the inner conductor and the
height from the conductor ground plane (col. 4, lines 36-40).
It does not appear that Shibano is a monopole antenna, as
claimed, because it produces a standing electric field
distribution around the conductor disc (col. 3, lines 46-47)
which provides radiation directivity, rather than having the
plurality of conductor wires connecting the capacitor top to the
ground plane produce the electric field. Because Shibano seems
to be a different kind of antenna, we do not find any motivation
to combine the antenna structure of Shibano with the other
references even though the stacked discs in Fig. 8(d) look
similar to appellants' Fig. 2a and even though the examiner is
correct that Fig. 8(d) broadly shows connection of a coaxial
probe to the top capacitor plate and the outer conductor to the
ground plane and even though claims 4-7 do not recite that the
capacitor tops are stacked. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 4-7 and 9 over Nishikawa or Reggia or Goubau, each in view
of Shibano, is reversed. It is noted that the previous rejection
of claim 4 over Goubau alone is maintained because claim 4 does
not distinguish over the multiple top arrangement of Goubau and
because the rejection of claim 4 over Goubau alone has not been
argued.
Nishikawa or Reggia or Goubau in view of Parham
- 14 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007