Appeal No. 1999-1894
Application 08/847,804
example, 825 to 960 MHz. The Examiner calculates the mean
frequency to be 892.5 MHz. The Examiner reasons that if
895 MHz is the "selected resonant frequency," the antenna is
less than a quarter of that wavelength, but the antenna can
still radiate (FR3). Presumably, the Examiner intends to pick
a frequency having a longer wavelength than 892.5 MHz, whose
quarter wavelength is longer than the length of the radiating
element; this requires a lower (not higher) frequency, such as
890 MHz. Appellants respond that the Examiner departs from
the claim language and the "selected resonant frequency" of
claim 9 is fixed by the parameters of the band rejection
filter (the trap) (Br10). The Examiner persists in his
interpretation that antenna element 22 in Fenwick or 14 in
Dörrie "does exhibit a length less than the design frequency
when operating at a frequency higher [sic, lower] than the
mean (design) frequency of the antenna which is used in the
frequency band of operation" (EA5).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's reasoning is
inconsistent with the language of claim 9. Claim 9 defines
that "said first band rejection filter resonates at a selected
resonant frequency," so the selected resonant frequency is
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007