Appeal No. 1999-2070
Application 08/611,899
applications and the use of a microstrip transmission line
with a field emitter array. Examiner’s Answer at page 9. The
Examiner concludes that Appellants’ arguments are not
convincing because they do not address the rejection based on
the obvious combination of the references [Shelton and
Johnson]. Examiner’s Answer at page 9.
In reviewing claim 1, we focus on the limitation which
Appellants impliedly state is lacking in the prior art of
Shelton. That limitation at claim 1, lines 11-14 recites:
(b) a microstrip transmission line overlying the
insulating layer and having a predetermined width causing
electrical contact with a selected group of said field
tips at the proximal end thereof.
We find, and Examiner additionally has conceded, that
Shelton does not teach this limitation. Turning to Johnson,
we find mention of a microstrip transmission line at column 5,
lines 39-43. There, Johnson discloses,
The field emission array 60 in this configuration
functions as a microstrip transmission line having
emitters 82 spaced along it, and the RF field within the
receiver protector device is capacitively coupled to the
field emission array.
However, the mere mention of a microstrip transmission
line in Johnson is insufficient to cure the deficiency of
Shelton here, where the Johnson reference is devoid of the
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007