Appeal No. 1998-0180
Application No. 08/471,309
OPINION
The Section 102 rejection over Liu
“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.” RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The examiner has rejected Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Liu. The
examiner contends that “first” and “second” coaxial waveguides as claimed are disclosed in Figure 7 of
Liu, based on two alternative readings of the claims on the reference. (See Final Rejection, pages 2
and 3.) Additionally, the “dispersion relationship recited in the claims is inherent in the design of the
waveguide radiator in Liu....” (Id. at 3.)
The first alternative reading, as set out on page 2 of the Final Rejection, is based on an
interpretation of the reference such that Figure 7 of Liu, although appearing to show an innermost
waveguide that is hollow , actually has an inner surface as depicted in the waveguide in Figure 1 of the2
reference. Appellant disputes the interpretation (see, e.g., footnote 3 of page 23 of the Brief), but does
not offer any alternative interpretations of the language in Liu’s written description upon which the
examiner bases his interpretation.
2We will follow appellant’s convention, as set forth on page 11 of the Brief, in referring to a
waveguide having inner and outer conducting surfaces as “coaxial,” and to a waveguide having only an outer
conducting surface as “hollow” or “circular.”
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007