Appeal No. 2002-0269
Application No. 09/495,604
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 5) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 12) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief1 (Paper No. 11) and
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 13) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
The examiner finds instant claim 1 to be anticipated by Korisch, for the reasons
set forth at page 3 of the Answer. According to appellants, Korisch does not disclose a
“one-piece radiating element.” Appellants deem Korisch to teach a radiating element
having two separate and distinct parts; namely, radiating portions 30 and 32.
Appellants teach, on the other hand, a radiating element that is “devoid of physical
partitioning.” (Brief at 7.) The examiner responds by pointing to column 3, lines 7
through 9 of Korisch, finding that Korisch teaches that radiating element 28 (e.g., Fig. 3)
is a “unitary” layer of conductive material. (Answer at 5.)
We agree with the examiner that the unitary second layer 28 of Korisch is a “one-
piece radiating element” within the ambit of claim 1. As appellants observe, the
radiating element comprises a first radiating portion 30 and a second radiating portion
32, joined by connecting portion 34. Korisch col. 2, l. 66 - col. 3, l. 19; Fig. 3. However,
claim 1 does not distinguish over the unitary structure described by Korisch. We
1 Appellants filed an earlier brief that was refused entry by the examiner, and which we
accordingly have not considered in reaching our determinations.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007