Appeal No. 2005-0425
Application No. 09/887,144
the subject matter of independent claim 17 on appeal but, on the
other hand, does not show evidence of anticipation as to
dependent claim 18, which will be explained later. The showing
in figure 3 of Kenoun is consistent with appellants’ disclosed
contribution in the art in figures 3 through 5. It is believed
that the subject matter of independent claim 17 is intended to
read upon all three of these representative embodiments.
The discussion of Kenoun’s figure 3 begins at column 3, line
65. The bulk of the discussion at column 4 clearly illustrates
the correctness of the examiner’s position and the incorrectness
of appellants’ arguments set forth in the principal brief on
appeal as to claim 17 on appeal.
The examiner’s basic view in the answer, which is contested
beginning at the bottom of page 8 of the principal brief, is that
the second end 64, the labeled offset region 64 in Kenoun’s
figure 3, does tune the frequency range of the antenna. At least
the discussion in Kenoun beginning at column 4, line 18 clearly
teaches that the dimensions and geometry of the antenna wire 50's
sections or segments 56, 58 and 62 may be varied or otherwise
adjusted to achieve not only two or more resonant frequencies,
but also to tune the essential bandwidth with respect to each
resonant frequency range tuned. Thus, the artisan would well
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007