Appeal No. 1998-1545
Application No. 08/698,169
We disagree. The ground plane in McGirr may already be considered to be mounted
to the substrate since pedestal 44 may be considered as part of the ground plane (ground
plane 40, pedestal 44 and ground patch 60 are all conductively connected) but, as
explained supra, we still do not reach the claimed invention. With regard to placing the
conductive antenna elements 20 and 30 on the top, or first,
surface of the substrate in McGirr, we must ask, what would have led the artisan to
make such a modification? The transmit, receive and ground patch in McGirr are all on one
side of the substrate. Other than appellants’ own disclosure, we find nothing that would have
led the skilled artisan to place the transmit and receive patches on the opposite side of the
substrate while leaving the ground patch 60 on the other side of the substrate. Certainly,
Takeuchi does not suggest this modification. Even if such a modification were to be made,
the septum (pedestal 44) would not be located as struc-turally recited in the claims. While
the septum, in that case, might still be “between” the antenna elements, albeit on the
opposite side of the substrate, it would not be located between them in such a manner as to
result in any “reduced coupling between antenna elements,” as claimed. And, if the septum
is also modified so as to be placed on the top of the substrate, along with the conductive
antenna elements, then the septum would
no longer be connected to the ground plane 40, as is also required by the claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007