Appeal No. 1996-2163
Application 08/106,541
Novak shows a folded horn speaker arrangement where the speaker is placed in front of
the reflector arrangement housing 6a generally discussed at column 3, beginning at line
56, in the manner set forth at the end of claim 31 on appeal. Such a folded horn
arrangement in figure 7 of Novak is obviously an antenna body of the type initially set forth
in claim 31 on appeal also shaped as a reflector. However, in view of the combined
teachings of Novak and Senne, it would have been obvious to shape the outer rim edges
of the horn 6a in the manner of the serrated rolled edge approach shown in Senne.
Finally, we address the rejection of claims 30 and 32 under 35 USC § 103 in light of
the collective teachings of Senne, in view of Novak and Kobayashi. We sustain this
rejection for the reasons set forth earlier with respect to our affirmance of the rejection of
these claims under 35 USC § 103 in light of the collective teachings of Ishii and
Kobayashi. We do so for these reasons in addition to those set forth by the examiner at
page 13 of the second Answer. Appellant’s arguments as to this rejection in the Brief and
second Reply Brief do not address the rejection with any more particularity than we have
already discussed.
Appellant, even though prosecuting his own application pro se, may not fully
appreciate his own “duty to disclose information material to patentability” required of him in
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.56. On the one hand, appellant provided as an attachment to
the amendments supplied with Paper No. 15 of the present application filed on May 18,
1994 as well as an attachment to the principal Brief on appeal the 1987 Burnside article,
and continued to make mention in the arguments associated with the parent application
and this application in the various responses to the Office Actions issued, appellant’s
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007