Appeal No. 96-0625
Application 08/044,113
appeal. Claim 9 recites, and we find that the applied references fail to teach, the following critical
limitation with respect to the coupling device:
. . . wherein said coupling device is a coupling slot defined by a conductive member placed
between said first and said second cavities, sized smaller than said cavities, spaced from said
conductive cavity walls, and partially closing off adjacent ends of said cavities.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 15 to 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Watanabe. The examiner relies upon iris filter 37 (figures 14 and 16) to teach the "coupling device" or
"coupling slot" of claim 9 (Answer, page 3), and in the alternative, the examiner relies upon members 21
and 28 (figures 7 and 8) to teach this feature (Answer, page 3). The examiner argues (Answer, page
6) that filter 37 and plate 21 meet the "coupling device" limitation "because they allow one polarization
(H) to pass to the other waveguide while preventing the other polarization (V) to pass" (Answer, page
6).
We find that iris filter 37 fails to meet the clear requirements set forth in claim 9 of being
"smaller than" the first and second cavities and being spaced from the conductive cavity walls. As seen
from figure 14 of Watanabe, the iris filter 37 consists of a member having a rectangular slot therein.
While the slot of the filter is "smaller than" the first and second cavities, the coupling device or filter 37
itself is not smaller than the cavities (it is the same size). Likewise, while the slot in filter 37 is spaced
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007