Appeal 2007-0973
Application 10/254,835
support for the rejection. The Examiner finds that the “mutual magnetic
coupling” described in the reference is no different from the claimed
“mutual inductance.” Bowers teaches, in the text at column 5, that
cancellation of electromagnetic fields generated by antenna elements may be
effected by maximizing opposite phase current in loop elements, and that
mutual coupling is thus minimized. Bowers col. 4, l. 66 - col. 5, l. 44.
We do not find any arguments in the briefs that address Bowers’
teachings at column 5. When questioned on the point at the oral hearing,
Appellants’ representative indicated that the arguments bridging pages 11
and 12 of the Brief, discussing the material at column 9 that refers to Figure
4, served as a response to the Examiner’s findings with respect to column 5
of the reference.
We find, however, that the Examiner has provided reasonable
inferences with respect to the physical processes described in column 5 of
Bowers, which serve as further explanation of the embodiment of Figure 4.
We also observe that Bowers’ further description of ways to provide far field
cancellation (col. 1, l. 44 - col. 2, l. 2) is similar to Appellants’ teachings of
how to minimize the sum of mutual inductances between antennae. Bowers
is nominally directed to cancelling or minimizing far field antenna effects.
However, we find substantial support in Bowers for the Examiner’s finding
that antenna arrangements taught by the reference also serve to minimize the
sum of mutual inductances between antenna elements.
The Examiner has set forth at least a prima facie case for
unpatentability of instant claim 1. Appellants’ arguments to the contrary are
not persuasive. Appellants have not adduced evidence to call into question
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013