Appeal No. 1996-3960
Application No. 08/380,444
On pages 5 and 6 of the Answer, the Examiner sets forth
the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103. On page 6 of the
Answer the Examiner asserts that "it would have been obvious
to a skilled artisan to employ an amount of capacitance
between the input coax feeder 28 and the elements 13 and/or 14
for providing capacitive coupling of the antenna and the
feedline." Further, the Examiner asserts that one0 would be
motivated to use a capacitor for d.c. isolation.
As stated above, we find that the scope of claims 1 and 3
includes an antenna which is fed from two waveguides, one of
which is directly connected to the antenna and the other of
which is capacitively coupled to the antenna. Further, we
find that independent 9 is of similar scope. This limitation
is found in the claim 9 recitation of: "second waveguide
means for capacitively coupling said lower frequency to the
waveguide antenna element." Thus, we find that independent
claims 1, 3 and 9 all include the limitation of capacitively
coupling the lower frequency waveguide to the antenna.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007