Appeal No. 1999-2588
Application No. 08/694,901
pages 3-4.) We disagree with the examiner’s analysis of the recited claim language, and
we do not find a teaching or suggestion of direct connection between the antenna and the
inductor in either reference.
Appellants argue that the present invention is an integrated system that does not require
an external glass capacitor to complete the structure. (See brief at page 4.) We agree
with appellants. The examiner maintains that the claims do not preclude a structure with a
glass capacitor. (See answer at page 4.) We disagree with the examiner. While a glass
capacitor may be used in the system, it would have to be configured differently than as
recited in the language of independent claim 1. Specifically, Figure 2 of Parfitt and Figure
4 of Shyu show the antenna connected to the capacitor. The examiner’s argument
concerning the RF frequency is not an appropriate argument with respect to anticipation
since the structure is clearly not taught by Parfitt or Shyu. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
With respect to independent claims 18 and 26, appellants argue that Parfitt does not
teach the circuit board having a plurality of layers and the capacitor being formed on plural
layers. The examiner maintains that the “antenna 38 is formed on a printed circuit board
which is the glass 40” of Parfitt. (See answer at pages 5 and 7.) We disagree with the
examiner’s interpretation of the teachings of Parfitt. In our view, the glass of the window is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007