Appeal No. 96-0625
Application 08/044,113
"partially closing off adjacent ends of said cavities" - none of which is true unless the unnumbered pins
are interpreted as being the "conductive walls" and the circular opening 136 is interpreted as being the
coupling device. Therefore, we turn next to the conductive walls.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 8) that the first and second cavities are made up of annular
openings 134 and 138 in dielectric sheets 124 and 130, respectively. The examiner interprets that the
cavities recited in claim 9 are shown in Fassett’s figure 5 since the unnumbered pins in sheets 124 and
130 make up the circumference, or "walls," of the cavities. For this reason, the examiner alleges that
the coupling device (plate 125 having circular opening 136) is "sized smaller than said cavities" and is
"space from said conductive cavity walls." We disagree with this interpretation of Fassett by the
examiner because we can find no support for the proposition that the unnumbered circle of pins in
Fassett’s figure 5 constitute a "conductive wall" as required by claim 9 on appeal. Our close review of
Fassett reveals no place in the reference which discusses the unnumbered pins of figure 5. Most
notably, Fassett discusses figure 5 from column 5, line 22 through column 6, line 18. Nowhere in his
discussion of figure 5 does Fassett teach or suggest that the unnumbered pins are conductive or
represent "conductive walls."
We also agree with appellant’s argument (Reply Brief, page 7) that center conductors 130 and
132 are not "orthogonal" to center conductors 74R and 74L, but are disposed at an angle of 45
degrees on either side therein (see Fassett; column 9, lines 52 to 54). We note that the examiner
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007