Appeal No. 96-0365
Application 07/983,145
Turning first to the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection, the examiner indicates (Final rejection, pages 5
and 6) that:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical,
they are not patentably distinct from each other
because at least claims 7, 9, 19 and 20 thereof
recite the three basic elements of patches as
radiating elements, ground reference and pedestal in
specific terms and arrangements, broadly recited in
this application as claims 27-29. The recitation of
electrically connected in the patent claims
implies/include capacitive coupling. The broader
claims 27-29 define the same antenna arrangement of
the patented claims.
Appellants respond (Brief, pages 13 and 14) that:
While, admittedly, the stated elements are found in
the claims of the present application, the "separate
feedline" structure is not found in the claims of
U.S. Patent 5,231,407. As explained above, the
claims define a novel combination of receive patch
element having a receiver feedpoint, a transmit
patch element having a transmitter feedpoint, with
separate cables connected between the receiver and
the receive patch feedpoint, and the transmitter and
the transmit patch feedpoint. This separate
feedline structure is not recited in the claims of
the issued patent, and is not obvious in view of the
prior art, . . . .
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 27
through 29 is reversed because none of the claims in McGirr
recites appellants' claimed separate cables for the two patch
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007