Appeal No. 1998-1094
Application 08/497,064
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claims 1, 3 and 4 and Dupressoir
We take claim 1 of this group. After considering
Appellants’ arguments [brief, pages 6 to 9] and Examiner’s
position [final rejection, page 2 and answer, pages 4 to 6],
we are persuaded by Appellants that Dupressoir does not show
the limitations recited in claim 1. We find that the Examiner
is correct in asserting that the Dupressoir’s antenna can be
considered as a multi-mode antenna and is capable of
processing waves of two different frequencies contrary to
Appellants’ arguments that Dupressoir is designed for a
different purpose and that the second signal, though at a
different frequency, is used only for interrogation purposes.
However, we are persuaded by Appellants that Dupressoir does
not show the claimed limitation of “an aperture creating an
open space entirely through said first radiation-focusing
device, said aperture being spaced from a point where said
focal axis intersects the first radiation-focusing device.”
We find that the surface with mesh 4 in Dupressoir continues
on to the back of cavity 5 (col. 4, lines 1 to 15). Thus, the
Examiner’s assertion that cavity 5 goes entirely through
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007