Appeal No. 2002-0269
Application No. 09/495,604
therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Korisch.
We turn to the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Korisch and Murch. Appellants allege there is no motivation to
combine the references, but offer no foundation for the view. (Brief at 8-9). However,
we consider the references to support the examiner’s finding of motivation. The artisan,
particularly in view of Murch’s teachings at columns 1 and 2 of the reference, would
have been motivated to apply the refinements taught by Murch to the antenna described
by Korisch for the purpose of effecting a smaller antenna.
Appellants also assert that Murch teaches that one side vertical portion of the
antenna must be directly connected to the ground plane. Appellants point to the instant
specification for a teaching that the lower edge of each side vertical plane is to be
positioned a specific distance from the ground plane. (Brief at 9.)
Murch describes conductor 7 (Fig. 2) as being connected to second conductor
plate (ground plane) 6. Col. 3, ll. 8-48. However, we agree with the examiner that
conductor (“first side portion”) 7 extends downwardly towards the ground plane, and
further agree that claim 2 does not preclude contact between the first side portion and
the ground plane.
Appellants further assert (Brief at 9-10) that neither reference teaches a reactive
loading slot specifically located between a second side vertical portion and a shorting
pin. Murch, however, teaches (Fig. 14(a)) a slot 20 in the first conductor plate (i.e., in
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007