Appeal No. 2005-0425
Application No. 09/887,144
radiator towards the first end of the radiator, wherein the
feedback conductor includes a second end, extending along
the radiator in a second direction towards the second end of
the radiator, for tuning a frequency range of the antenna.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Kenoun et al. (Kenoun) 6,275,198 Aug. 14, 2001
(filed Jan. 11, 2000)
Claims 17 through 21, 25, 26 and 30 through 32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kenoun.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the examiner’s
positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, we
sustain the rejection of claims 17, 25, 26 and 30 through 32, but
reverse the rejection of claims 18 through 21.
Appellants’ principal brief on appeal essentially groups
most of the claims on appeal with independent claim 17 (including
independent claim 30) as a first stated group and dependent claim
18 as representative of claims 18 through 21 in a second stated
group. Arguments are presented only as to claims 17 and 18.
The showing and corresponding discussion in Kenoun’s figure
3 clearly provides sufficient evidence to show anticipation of
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007