Appeal No. 96-0418
Application 08/051,321
Appellant argues that there is nothing in Gaskill, Andros
and Rosen, taken singly or in combination, which would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to the invention of claim
1 [brief, pages 4 to 9]. Appellant point out that the
Examiner recognizes that Gaskill and Andros do not teach the
high Q antenna system and applies a third reference in the new
ground of rejection in the answer. Appellant further argues
that Rosen, too, “fails to disclose ... a high Q ... range.”
[reply brief, page 2, lines 13 to 17].
We note that claim 1 recites, among others, the feature
of “a high Q antenna having a length and width each
significantly and much less than a quarter wavelength within
said predetermined frequency range,” [lines 3 to 5], and “a
controllable reactive element coupled to said antenna having a
variable reactance for tuning said antenna in a high Q
resonant circuit to the frequency of a desired signal in said
frequency range,” [lines 6 to 9]. The Examiner has used a
combination of Gaskill, Andros and Rosen to meet these
features [answer, pages 4 to 5]. However, the Examiner has
not pointed to any specific language, and we have not so found
where such capability is disclosed in the applied prior art.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007