Appeal No. 2004-2195
Application No. 09/394,189
invention to determine the impedance, as a result of a finite element analysis, of the
antenna element which is then adjusted.
The examiner maintains that Erturk should not be limited to appellants’
interpretation that the microstrip line is only notched. (See answer at pages 15-16.)
We disagree with the examiner and do not find that Figure 1 of Erturk or the express
teachings of Erturk expressly support the examiner's contention, and we do not find that
the examiner has provided a reasoned analysis as to why finite element analysis is used
to determine the impedance and the adjustment of the antenna element. Therefore, we
find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
invention as recited in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. Independent
claims 8 and 22 contain similar limitations not taught or fairly suggested by the
examiner’s combination. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 8 and 22 and their dependent claims. Furthermore, we do not find that the
teachings of Flowerdew remedy the above-noted deficiencies with respect to dependent
claim 10. Also, we do not find that the teachings of Erturk alone or in combination with
Naitou remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 27 and,
therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 28 and 30.
CONCLUSION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007