Appeal No. 1998-0180
Application No. 08/471,309
However, the first alternative reading with respect to the Liu reference does not appear to
establish a case for anticipation, absent extrinsic evidence to support the interpretation. In column 4,
lines 21 et seq. of the reference, Liu states that each section shown in Figure 7 is fabricated as shown in
Figure 6. Column 3, lines 16 et seq. of the reference discloses that the embodiment of Figures 5 and 6
consists of two waveguide sections, with “the inner wall...omitted from the first section and an outer
wall 24 forms a circular waveguide.” As the examiner points out, Liu prefaces the statement regarding
omission of the inner wall with “[a]t this bandwidth,” which appears to suggest that at some other
bandwidths the inner wall would be present. However, it is not clear that it necessarily follows that the
innermost waveguide (52) shown in Figure 7 has both an inner and an outer conducting surface. We
have considered the examiner’s position set forth in the Final Rejection and the Answer, but are not
persuaded that the embodiment of Figure 7 discloses an innermost waveguide that is coaxial. As such,
we find that the limitations of Claim 1 are not met by the first alternative reading of the claims on the
reference.
The second alternative offered is that there are at least two coaxial waveguides shown in Figure
7; namely a first waveguide 54 propagating the TE mode (at 8-16 GHz) and a second waveguide 56
11
propagating the TE mode (at 8-16 GHz), with a conducting surface common to waveguide 54 and
21
waveguide 56. (See Final Rejection, page 3.) Appellant never directly addresses this interpretation of
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007