Appeal No. 96-0625
Application 08/044,113
objected to claims 11 to 14 as being allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Thus, only claims 9, 10, and 15 to 17 remain
before us on appeal.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal is directed to the field of signal transmission using a radiating
element (specification, page 1), and in particular, to a feed device for a radiating element operating in
dual polarization (specification, page 1 and claim 9 on appeal). As indicated in the specification (page
5), a first and second feed line contained in respective first and second cavities are perpendicular to
each other and are orthogonal to a principal axis. A coupling device between the cavities serves to
electromagnetically couple the cavities (page 6). The coupling device consists of a conductive member
which is smaller than the first and second cavities, is spaced apart from the first and second cavities,
and also partially closes off adjacent ends of the cavities. In general, appellant’s invention recited in
sole independent claim 9 on appeal seeks to provide a dual polarization feed device with two cavities
separated by the coupling device as just described. As further discussed, infra, we find that the applied
references to Watanabe and Fassett each fail to individually teach or suggest at least the feature of a
coupling device as defined in the claims on appeal.
Representative claim 9 is reproduced below:
9. A feed device for a radiating element operating in dual polarization, said feed device
comprising:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007