Appeal 2006-3233
Application 10/046,596
antenna cannot be formed of the same material and remain contiguous with
the chassis. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 4, and 9 and their dependent claims 7 and 12.
With respect to independent claim 14, we reach a different conclusion
since we cannot interpret the language of the claim in light of the
specification since there would be no difference between independent claim
14 and dependent claim 15. Dependent claim 15 recites “integrating the
antenna includes forming the antenna from a part of the chassis and forming
the antenna with an edge contiguous with the chassis.”
If we interpret the “integrating” term as Appellant as indicated in the
specification, then dependent claim 15 is duplicative of that claim language
which would not be proper. Therefore, for independent claim 14 and
dependent claim 15 to be distinct they must be different in scope and
independent claim 14 must have been intended by Appellant to be broader in
scope than the definition as advanced by Appellant. Therefore, we find that
independent claim 14 cannot be reasonably read with the definition at page 8
in the Specification. Therefore, we find that the Examiner was not
unreasonable in the interpretation given to independent claim 14 and in the
application of the teachings of Crawford to independent claim 14. Therefore
we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 14.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have reversed the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and affirmed the rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013