Appeal No. 2001-1536
Application 08/428,256
The examiner cites Parham as evidence of the level of
ordinary skill in the art (FR4). In particular, the examiner
states that "Parham . . . shows between Figures 4 and 6 the
obviousness of changing design from circular to rectangular
capacitive plates 51,53,55, and connecting a radiating wire near
the short side of the rectangle thereof" (FR4). The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to employ the
configuration of claim 8 "for the purpose of changing mounting
geometry and capacitance of the antenna" (FR5).
Appellants argue that Parham does not teach or suggest
preparing rectangular capacitive plates in a monopole antenna and
teaches away from preparing a rectangular capacity top (Br14).
Initially, we note that Nishikawa teaches a rectangular
parallel plate (table) with dimensions L 1=0.2180 and L2=0.1880
(col. 9, line 26), where the wire conductors 30 are connected to
the short L2 side of the rectangle. Therefore, Parham is not
required to meet the limitations of claim 8. The rejection of
claim 8 is sustained over Nishikawa alone.
Parham does not cure the deficiency of Reggia apparently not
being a monopole antenna as recited in claim 10. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 8 over Reggia and Parham is reversed.
As to the rejection of Goubau in view of Parham, while
Parham shows that the annular capacitive plates 51, 53, 55 in
Fig. 4 can be implemented as rectangular capacitive plates in
- 15 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007