Appeal No. 1998-2897
Application No. 08/749,381
‘connected to apply an RF drive signal to said antenna through
said back surface connection’” (claim 8). Appellant has also
correctly argued (Brief, pages 4 and 5) that the lead 15A
(i.e., center conductor 15A of coaxial cable 15), the lead 15B
(i.e., sheath 15B of the coaxial cable), the lead 60A (i.e.,
positive side of DC voltage source), and the lead 60B (i.e.,
negative side of DC voltage source) are not electrically
connected to a chip and do not extend from a chip to the
outside of the antenna. Lastly, we agree with appellant’s
argument (Brief, pages 5 through 7) that the examiner has not
provided an adequate reason for encapsulating circuitry in the
Halstead antenna with an epoxy resin as taught by Dubois.
Based upon the inadequacies in the teachings of the
applied references to Halstead and Dubois, we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3 through 8, 10 through 14
and 16 through 20. The obviousness rejection of claims 2, 9
and
15 is likewise reversed because the silicon monolithic
microwave integrated circuit (Si-MMWIC) teachings of Büchler
do not cure the noted inadequacies of Halstead and Dubois.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007