Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
...force said antipodal slotline of said radiating
element to operate as a coplanar slotline-type of
structure by concentrating fields
is indefinite because the meaning of “slotline-type of
structure” is unclear since it has no specifically defined
structure in the antenna art. Further, it is the examiner’s
position that “...by concentrating fields” is indefinite and
adds to the confusion of a “slotline-type of structure”
because “any slot radiator has a concentration of the electric
field, but not necessarily the magnetic field” [answer-page
4].
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 17, 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because we find no
confusion caused by the identified claim language. It appears
clear, from reference to page 6 of the instant specification,
that while the conductor strips of the upper and lower
patterns 66 and 64 are not coplanar, the arrangement recited
in claim 17 and shown in Figure 4 allows the antipodal
slotline of the radiating element to appear as a coplanar
slotline structure by operating as such, i.e., as “a coplanar
slotline-type of structure.” The concentration of the
electric fields is what allows such an operation. The claim,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007