Appeal No. 1999-1894
Application 08/847,804
required in a technical standard. Second, a 8/4 monopole as
taught by Fenwick does not inherently have the claimed
radiation pattern (paras. 6 & 7), while a monopole in
accordance with the invention does have the claimed pattern
(para. 8). Third, not every "short monopole" (length less
than 8/4) necessarily meets the claimed radiation pattern
(para. 9). Thus, the length of the radiating element must be
selected to provide the claimed radiation pattern.
For the reasons above, we conclude that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as to
independent claim 9. The rejection of claims 9, 11-14, 17-20,
and 25-29 is reversed. Dell-Imagine does not cure the
deficiencies of Fenwick and Dörrie with respect to claim 9
and, consequently, the rejection of claim 23 is reversed.
Independent claims 15 and 30 contain length and radiation
pattern limitations similar to those in claim 9, which are
also missing from the combination of Fenwick and Dörrie.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 15, 16, and 30 is reversed.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007