Appeal No. 2006-1203
Application No. 10/370,976
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of claims 2, 4, 5 and 11-16 over Tran and Zibrik
In rejecting claims 2, 4, 5 and 11-16, the Examiner further relies on Zibrik for
teaching dual-band antennas 30 and 40 integrated into a display portion of a laptop
computer and concludes that the specific frequency ranges for the antennas would have
been obvious (answer, paragraph bridging pages 3 & 4). Appellants argue that the
combination of Tran and Zibrik does not suggest all the claimed elements nor provides
a basis or motivation for the obviousness rejection (brief, page 13). The Examiner
responds by stating that Zibrik is cited as evidence of obviousness of using the two
antennas on the lid of a laptop computer and the connection of the elements to the
computer frame for grounding purposes (answer, page 13).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants that the claimed configurations of the
antenna and its grounding with respect to the metal support of a laptop computer is not
suggested by the combination of Tran and Zibrik. As discussed above, the antenna of
claim 1 is met by the teachings of Tran while Zibrik describes the connection of such
antenna in a laptop computer. However, we disagree with the Examiner that the
frequency ranges recited in claim 2 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled
in the art based on the teachings of Zibrik. The frequency ranges disclosed by Zibrik
relate to two different antennas 30 and 40 and not to the operating frequency of each of
the elements as required by claim 2. Although the frequency ranges disclosed by Zibrik
are more than a half wave length apart (col. 4, lines 6-11), they define the overall
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007