Appeal No. 1997-3164
Application 08/397,024
Additionally, appellant argues that a dual frequency cavity
backed slot antenna is defined in the specification as a
particular type of antenna which is not taught or suggested by
Schnetzer [first reply brief].
The examiner responds that the claims do not require
two frequency tuning or that the adjustment take place after
fabrication of the antenna. The examiner also asserts that
the preamble of claim 23 does not require that limitations
from the specification be read into the claim as asserted by
appellant [supplemental answer]. Appellant responds by
reiterating his position that the claimed invention relates to
a dual frequency cavity backed slot antenna as defined in the
specification [second reply brief].
It is clear that the propriety of the rejection in
this case hinges directly on the correct interpretation of the
scope of the claims. There is basically no dispute as to what
the patent to Schnetzer teaches. The dispute between the
examiner and appellant revolves around the question of whether
the claimed invention is broad enough to be suggested by the
teachings of Schnetzer within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007