Appeal No. 2001-1304
Application No. 09/061,392
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
The examiner finds that, in view of the disclosed structure as shown in Figure 1
of Goodman, the reference meets all the terms of instant claim 1 except for the first
monopole antenna element having an outer diameter that varies between a base end
and a top end. The rejection turns to Saari, deemed to teach a monopole antenna with
a varying diameter that reduces the breakage rate of the antenna element. The
rejection concludes that it would have been obvious to construct the first monopole
antenna element disclosed in Goodman from cylindrical sections of decreasing
diameter to reduce the breakage rate of the element, as taught by Saari. (Answer at 4-
5.)
Appellant argues, inter alia, that even if the references suggested combination,
the suggestion would be to construct both vertical monopoles of Goodman of a varying
diameter, rather than to leave one vulnerable to breakage. (Brief at 6-7.) The examiner
responds (Answer at 6) that the antenna elements disclosed in Goodman could be
under different load conditions and made from different materials. Because of
postulated greater costs in constructing tapered antenna elements, only one antenna
element could be tapered in the interest of avoiding the extra costs.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007