Appeal No. 1999-1926
Application No. 08/675,938
reference, ... to provide an exemplary teaching of the
obviousness of clamping bodies having an adjustable clamping
pressure in a transverse direction. Therefore, the Shen/Hendrick
combination has no ‘holes in the dielectric insert.’” We agree
with the Examiner’s position. While modifying the Shen reference
an artisan is not supposed to bodily incorporate the structure of
the secondary reference into the main reference, rather an
artisan would use the teaching of adjustable pressure in
modifying the clamping pressure applied by 35 on the insert 30
in Shen. Hendrick provides the motivation for a variable
pressure on the insert to account for changes caused by
temperature, see col. 1, lines 25-34. Therefore, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Shen and Hendrick.
Mizumura
The Examiner gives a lucid explanation of the rejection of
claim 42 over Mizumura at page 8 of the Examiner’s answer.
Appellants argue (brief at page 13) that “[c]laim 42 ... defines
that the waveguide has a projection formed in direction of its
diameter, so that the plate abuts against the projection. This
feature is not disclosed in the reference ....” We disagree with
Appellants. Clearly, the waveguide 42 has a projection 42A which
extends along the diameter of the waveguide, and that projection
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007