Appeal No. 1999-2070
Application 08/611,899
further find that Gray does not suggest a voltage limiter.
Without an objective teaching or suggestion of a “voltage
limiter” in the prior art, the Examiner cannot satisfy the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of Claim 6 as obvious over Gray.
We consider now the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16 and
18-20 as unpatentable over Shelton and Johnson.
Appellants contend that Shelton will not operate at
microwave frequencies because the capacitance of the high
vacuum field effect electron tube will be a lumped impedance
element in a microwave circuit. Brief at page 11, lines 8-11.
Appellants further assert that lumped impedance elements
require reactive tuning to negate their effect. Brief at page
11, lines 11-12. Appellants additionally state that the
reactive tuning limits the bandwidth of the device making it
unsuitable for microwave applications. Brief at page 11,
lines 12-14. By contrast, Appellants assert that Appellants
use a microstrip format for the implementation of the field
array limiter. Brief at page 11, lines 14-16. Finally,
Appellants assert that Shelton never mentions operation in the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007