Appeal No. 96-0365
Application 07/983,145
does not have to specifically suggest to the skilled
artisan that separate feeding cables may be used to feed
the separate patch antennas disclosed therein. Such
separate feedline cables are taken for granted and are
certainly common knowledge of the antenna/RF engineer
(Answer, pages 8 and 9).
Without the benefit of at least a scintilla of evidence
in the record to support the examiner's extensive line of
reasoning, we are inclined to agree with appellants' argument
that the examiner's reasoning is nothing more than
"conclusionary statements which are impermissibly motivated by
the teaching of the present invention, rather than the prior
art, and therefore are based upon hindsight" (Reply Brief,
page 2). The obviousness rejection of claims 27 and 28 is
reversed.
In the obviousness rejection of claim 29, Dodington was
cited by the examiner (Answer, page 5) to show that the use of
a third patch in an antenna was well known in the art. The
obviousness rejection of claim 29 is reversed because
Dodington does not cure the cable separateness shortcoming in
the teachings of both Zakman and Yokoyama.
DECISION
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007