Appeal No. 2004-2195
Application No. 09/394,189
element analysis. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of anticipation, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 27.
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to the obviousness rejection, the examiner relies upon the teachings
of Tsuru, Krenz and Lane to evidence the invention as recited in independent claim 1,
but continues to rely on the teachings of Erturk with respect to impedance matching
determined by finite element analysis as discussed above in the anticipation rejection.
(See answer at pages 5-6 and 14.) The examiner maintains that the FDTD (finite
difference time domain) protocol is “read as a finite element analysis” and that this
analysis is used to determine the expected impedance. Appellants argue that Erturk
does not teach or inherently disclose the step of determining the transmitter impedance
as well as the estimated impedance of the antenna. (See brief at page 5.) Appellants
argue that Erturk teaches the adjustment of the microstrip transmission line rather than
the antenna. (See brief at page 5.) The examiner maintains that the microstrip line is “a
portion of the transmitter amplifier portion of the circuit as read by the examiner.” (See
answer at page 14.) With this interpretation of the Erturk reference, we do not find that
the impedance of the antenna element is adjusted as a result of a finite element
analysis. Nor do we find that the examiner has provided a convincing line of reasoning
why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007