Appeal 2007-0565
Application 10/374,097
1 Garito US 5,954,686 Sep. 21, 1999
2 (Feb. 2, 1998)
3 Ryan US 6,224,593 B1 May 1, 2001
4 (Jan. 13, 1999)
5 REJECTIONS
6 Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
7 obvious over Garito, Ryan, Rigby and Appellants' admission that provision of an
8 insulating choke element and of a supply conductor which has a length of an odd1
9 number of quarter wavelengths is prior art.
10 Claims 14-16 and 39-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
11 over Brayshaw, Garito, Ryan, Rigby and Appellants' admission that provision of
12 an insulating choke element and of a supply conductor which has a length of an
13 odd number of quarter wavelengths is prior art.
14 Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Garito,
15 Ryan, Rigby, Rosen and Appellants' admission that provision of an insulating
16 choke element and of a supply conductor which has a length of an odd number of
17 quarter wavelengths is prior art.
1 The Examiner has mistyped the word “odd” as “old” in the Answer and in every
Office action in the record. The Appellants have never commented on the
typographical error. It is clear the Examiner meant “odd” from the use of the claim
limitation “odd number multiple” in claim 10. None of the contentions in this
appeal rely on this term.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013