Appeal No. 2006-1203
Application No. 10/370,976
antenna (brief, page 7). To further distinguish the claims over Tran,
Appellants argue that Tran describes the antenna as “an open
ended parallel plate waveguide,” which is contrary to the
Examiner’s contention that the second strip is grounded (id.).
The Examiner responds by stating that independent claim 1 is
not limited to a dual-band antenna where the frequencies of
operation are widely separated but merely requires each element
operate at some frequency range encompassed by two defined limits
(answer, pages 4-5). The Examiner then asserts that subject
matter of claim 1 is met by Tran since the antenna of Tran is
defined by two resonating antenna structures wherein one is
connected to the feed pin of a coaxial connection and the other
to the shield of the coaxial connection (answer, pages 6 & 9-11).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry as to whether a
reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007