Appeal No. 2005-0425
Application No. 09/887,144
its dependent claims 19 through 21 is reversed. In considering
the fact that claim 18 recites that the claimed radiator of
independent claim 17 is a helical radiator, the nature of the
antenna actually recited in claim 17 requires this claimed
radiator, as well as a feedback conductor, as separately recited
elements, which are connected together and shaped in a particular
manner as recited there.
It is clear from even a brief inspection of figure 3 of
Kenoun that an end of the helical portion 66 is not connected or
subject to be connected to the radio circuitry of the portable
communication apparatus as in claim 17. According to the
examiner’s analysis, and our affirmance of the rejection of claim
17, the helical portion 66 is a part of the segment 62 in
Kenoun’s figure 3 and is not subject to be connected to the radio
circuitry of the portable communication apparatus as recited in
claim 17. The mere fact that the radiator does include a helical
portion 66 as expressed at the bottom of page 9 of the answer is
an incomplete consideration not only of the teaching value of
Kenoun but the actual requirements of appealed independent claim
17 and the physical arrangement of the elements recited there.
The point at which helical portion 66 becomes non-helical is its
“end,” as at offset 64, and not end 52 of segment 56. Therefore,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007