Appeal No. 96-0625
Application 08/044,113
apart from the cavity walls, the coupling device or filter 37 itself is not spaced apart from the cavity
walls.
We also find that plates 21 and 28 fail to meet the clear requirements set forth in claim 9 of
being "between said first and said second cavities" and of "partially closing off adjacent ends of said
cavities." Plates 21 and 28 serve as reflection elements (Watanabe; column 5, lines12 to 52) which are
not between the first and second cavities (see figure 16), but which are in the middle of each of the first
and second cavities. Thus, we are in agreement with appellant that Watanabe fails to anticipate claim 9
as to the "coupling device" feature (Brief, page 7; Reply Brief, page 3).
We turn next to the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 15 to 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Fassett. We are in agreement with appellant’s view of Fassett, that "[n]o coupling device as required
by independent claim 9 exists in the Fassett reference" (Brief, page 9), and that "[t]here is nothing in
Fassett which suggests, either expressly or impliedly, that the ‘unnumbered pins’ referenced by the
Examiner define the circumference of the annular openings 134 and 138" (Reply Brief, page 6).
The examiner relies upon circular opening 136 in metallic plate 125 (figure 5) to teach the
"coupling device" or "coupling slot" of claim 9 (Answer, page 8). We cannot agree with this
interpretation, since for the circular opening 136 to read on claim 9's coupling device, the unnumbered
pins must be read to be the "conductive walls" of claim 9. This is because claim 9 recites the coupling
device as being "sized smaller than said cavities," being "spaced from said conductive cavity walls," and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007