Appeal No. 96-2408
Application No. 08/246,538
as amended, calls for “concentrating fields.” This may be a
broader term than the examiner would like, but it is clearly
supported at page 6, line 23 of the specification and we find
nothing indefinite about the term.
We turn, now, to the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. 103.
We note, initially, that in a decision of March 21, 1994,
this Board sustained a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of
similar claims over the same three primary references employed
herein. However, while similar, the instant claims are
amended versions of the previous claims and the instant claims
are narrower than those previously before us.
The examiner rejects claims 15, 16 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
103 over Gazit, Fassett and Lamberty for reasons similar to
ours in sustaining the rejection in our earlier decision.
However, the claims have been amended. While we had earlier
dismissed [see page 6 of the earlier decision] appellant’s
argument, regarding incorporation of a circulator into a
single flared notch radiating element to provide integral
transmit and receive connections or ports and that this went
against conventional wisdom, as not being commensurate in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007