Appeal No. 2001-1536
Application 08/428,256
Fig. 6, we are not persuaded that Parham suggests such a
modification of shape in a monopole antenna as shown in Goubau.
However, even if it did, we find no suggestion that the radiating
wire should be attached to the short side of the rectangle.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 over Goubau and Parham is
reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 10, 2, and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Nishikawa is sustained.
The rejection of claims 10, 2, and 3 under § 103(a) over
Reggia is reversed.
The rejection of claims 10 and 2-4 under § 103(a) over
Goubau is sustained.
The rejections of claims 4-7 and 9 under § 103(a) over
Nishikawa or Reggia or Goubau in view of Shibano are reversed.
The rejection of claim 8 under § 103(a) over Nishikawa and
Parham is sustained over Nishikawa alone and the rejections of
claim 8 under § 103(a) over Reggia or Goubau in view of Parham
are reversed.
- 16 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007