Ex parte Funder

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 9, 1998

08046240 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 9, 1998)

Application for patent filed April 13, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TORBEN FUNDER
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1663
Application 08/046,2401
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1663
Application 08/046,240
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejec-
tion of claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 25, all of the claims
pending in the application. Claim 7 has been canceled.
The invention relates to an antenna system having at
least two dipole antennas and a method of manufacturing such
an antenna system. In particular, Appellant discloses on
pages 3 and 4 of the specification that Figure 3 shows the
active part of the antennas, including the feed lines which
are made by punching or cutting a thick plate of material. On
page 3 of the specification, Appellant discloses that arm 7,
leg 17 and feed lines 8, 9, 10 and 11 are configured in one
piece.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. An antenna system comprising at least two dipole
antennas (6) constituting an antenna module (40) and placed
above and parallel to a common, artificial ground plane (5) in
the form of an electrically conducting plate, feed lines (8,
9, 10, 11) designed as waveguides with air dielectric from the
dipole antennas to a common feeding point (4) and where the
dipole antennas each have a pair of dipole arms which are
carried by matching legs (17) which can form part of the feed
lines, characterized in that the feed lines from each dipole
antenna (6) to the common point (4) and at least one dipole
Appeal No. 96-1663
Application 08/046,240
Appellant filed an appeal brief on April 20, 1995. 2
Appel- lant filed a reply appeal brief on September 20, 1995.
The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter mailed October
17, 1995 that the reply brief has been entered and considered
but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
arm (7) in each dipole antenna and a matching leg (17) are
configured mechani- cally and electrically in one piece of a
homogeneous material.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as
follows:
Scharlau 2,130,033 Sept. 13,
1938
Watts 2,973,517 Feb. 28,
1961
Kuecken 2,978,703 Apr. 4,
1961
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Scharlau. Claims 2 through 6, 11 through
15 and 19 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Scharlau in view of Watts. Claims 8
through 10, 16 through 18 and 23 through 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scharlau in
view of Watts and Kuecken.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 2
Appeal No. 96-1663
Application 08/046,240
4
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
do not agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is anticipated by
Scharlau.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under
§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses
every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues on pages 13 through 16 of the brief
and on pages 3 through 7 of the reply brief that Scharlau
fails to teach the Appellant's claimed limitations as required
under
35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellant argues that
Scharlau does not teach that "the feed lines from each dipole
antenna to the common point and at least one dipole arm in
each dipole antenna and a matching leg are configured
Appeal No. 96-1663
Application 08/046,240
5
mechanically and electrically in one piece of a homogeneous
material" as recited in Appellant's claim 1.
Upon a careful review of Scharlau, we find that when
read as a whole, Scharlau teaches that Figures 1 and 2 show a
multiple short-wave radiator which is made up of a plurality
of individual building blocks. These building blocks must be
connected by suitable contact means such as the contact means
disclosed in Figure 3. Therefore, we find that Scharlau fails
to teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and thereby the
claim is not anticipated by Scharlau.
Claims 2 through 6, 11 through 15 and 19 through 22
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Scharlau in view of Watts. Claims 8 through 10, 16
through 18 and 23 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Scharlau in view of Watts and
Kuecken. We note
that for these rejections, the Examiner argues that Scharlau
teaches that the feed lines form each dipole antenna to a
common point and at least one dipole arm in each dipole
Appeal No. 96-1663
Application 08/046,240
6
antenna and a matching leg are configured mechanically and
electrically in one piece of a homogeneous material. Upon a
careful review of Scharlau, Watts and Kuecken, we find that
neither of these references teaches nor suggests the above
limitations as recited in Appellant's claims, and thereby we
will not sustain the Examiner rejection of claims 2 through
6, 8 through 25.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 6 and 8 through 25 is
reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1663
Application 08/046,240
7
psb
Appeal No. 96-1663
Application 08/046,240
8
Alfred A. Fressola
Ware, Fressola, Van Der Sluys & Adolphson
755 Main Street, Bldg. 5, P.O. Box 224
Monroe, CT 06468