Appeal No. 2005-0425
Application No. 09/887,144
appreciate that both the frequency range and the bandwidth of
Kenoun’s antenna, and the three major segments 56, 58 and
62, permit “tuning a frequency range of the antenna” as set forth
in the last line of claim 17 on appeal, notwithstanding
appellants’ arguments to the contrary beginning at page 9 of the
principal brief on appeal.
The examiner’s responsive arguments beginning at the bottom
of page 5 make clear that the examiner considers the teaching
value of column 4 of Kenoun as teaching the variability or
tune-ability of the bandwidth itself. The remaining parts of the
responsive arguments in the answer focus upon argued but
unclaimed, yet disclosed features. Appellants’ attempt to urge
us to read disclosed but unclaimed features into the subject
matter of claim 17 on appeal is rejected. It is noted that claim
17 clearly does not require the adjustment of the “resonant”
frequencies as urged at the top of page 11 of the principal
brief, even though the earlier-noted discussion of column 4 of
Kenoun does teach this. The reply brief does not traverse the
examiner’s responsive arguments in the answer as to claim 17.
Appellants’ second principal argument beginning at page
12 of the brief is also misplaced. The first of the positions
set forth here is that Kenoun does not disclose that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007