Appeal No. 1999-2070
Application 08/611,899
1553, 220 USPQ 311, 312-13. In addition, our reviewing court
requires the PTO to make specific findings on a suggestion to
combine prior art references. In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
1000-01, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617-19 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims as obvious over
Shelton and Johnson.
Turning to independent claim 15, we note that this claim
also requires “a microstrip transmission line”. We have
already established that neither Shelton nor Johnson teaches
or suggests “a microstrip transmission line”. Therefore, we
find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to claim 15. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 and its dependent
claims as obvious over Shelton and Johnson.
In summary, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-3, 5, 10-12, 15, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Gray. We reverse the Examiner’s
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007