Appeal No. 1997-2298
Application 08/329,113
claims 6 and 8 were disclosed by the Hings reference.
Appellant now argues that our original decision failed to
consider all of the arguments in the Appeal Brief. In
particular, Appellant asserts that our decision did not
address what is now asserted as the most fundamental
distinction between Hings and the claimed invention, i.e. the
requirement that the first and second conductors “form a
single loop describing an umbrella-shaped section lying
substantially in a plane.”
We have reconsidered our decision of March 28, 2000 in
light of Appellant’s comments in the Request for Rehearing,
and we find no error therein. We, therefore, decline to make
any changes in our prior decision for the reasons which
follow.
Appellant has amplified his original arguments in the
Appeal Brief related to the single loop requirements of
appealed claims 6 and 8 by now asserting (Request, page 2):
[T]he conductors in the Hings antennas form multiple
circular loops rather than a single loop describing
an umbrella-shaped section lying substantially in a
plane.
We find no error, however, in our finding (Decision, page
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007