Appeal No. 1999-1926
Application No. 08/675,938
art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Two different pieces of evidence are used to reject the
other two independent claims, 1 and 42.
Shen and Hendrick
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under this combination at pages
5 and 6 of the Examiner’s answer. The Examiner asserts that Shen
discloses all the limitations of claim 1 except for the clamping
bodies in Shen do not have a changeable clamping pressure on the
dielectric insert. However, the Examiner asserts that Hendrick
in Figure 2 discloses clamping bodies 11 for dielectric insert 12
in waveguide 10, with the clamping pressure of the clamping
bodies 11 being adjustable with screw threads 11A as shown in
Figure 3. The Examiner uses this teaching of Hendrick in
modifying the assembly shown by Shen in Figures 7A and 7B.
Appellants argue (brief at page 13) that “Hendrick does not use
clamping bodies for adjusting the clamping pressure onto the
dielectric insert. Instead, he uses a special guiding holes to
fix the dielectric insert in a defined position. The present
invention does not use holes in the dielectric insert.” The
Examiner responds (answer at page 9) that “[t]hat argument is
unpersuasive because the Examiner has used the Hendrick
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007