Appeal 2006-2624
Application 10/223,246
It is noted that the argued features associated with dependent claim 22
at page 10 of the brief relate to features of this claim corresponding to the
features of independent claim 19. As such, we must reverse the rejection of
claim 22 for the same reasons. We have already made reference to our
consideration of the features of dependent claim 21. As to the argued
feature of dependent claim 23 relating to the indicator being physically
connected to a transmitted power detector, the assertion at the bottom of
page 10 of the Brief is misplaced to the extent that it is noted that Durkota’s
display 189 is connected to a micro processor. As noted earlier, this is not
the rationale of the Examiner since the watt meter 112 is directly connected
to a sensor 110 which in turn is directly connected to the antenna 102 itself.
In view of the foregoing, we have affirmed the rejection of claims 1
through 6, 10 through 15, 20, 21, 23 and 25 but have reversed the rejection
of dependent claims 7 through 9, 16 through 18 and 22 as well as the
rejection of independent claim 19. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner
is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013