Appeal No. 1999-2070
Application 08/611,899
microwave region and never envisioned operation at microwave
frequencies. Comparing the Johnson prior art, Appellants
contend that Appellants’ device does not require an ionizable
gas whereas Johnson requires that the discharge chamber
contain a gas. Brief at page 12, lines 12-19. Additionally,
Appellants assert that Appellants’ invention does not use the
field emitter array to initiate a discharge. Brief at page
12, lines 23-24. Appellants state that in Appellants’
invention, the electrons emitted by the array directly provide
a low impedance across the transmission lines thus acting as a
limiter (receiver protector). Brief at pages 12, line 24 to
page 13, line 2. This, Appellants state further, is a
fundamental difference between Johnson and Appellants’
invention. Brief at page 13, lines 2-3.
The Examiner first argues that Appellants’ assertion
stating that the Shelton device will not work lacks objective
evidence. Examiner’s Answer at page 8. Additionally,
Examiner argues that the claims do not appear to recite a
microwave frequency range. Examiner’s Answer at page 8. With
respect to the Johnson reference, Examiner states that the
Johnson reference is relied upon for its teachings of RF
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007