Appeal No. 96-0423
Application 08/126,439
The examiner’s position is simply misplaced as to this
aspect of the requirement of claim 3 on appeal. The adjust-
ability of the hour angle in Figure 1 of Longhurst by means of
the locking screw 8 about the polar axis of shaft 6 and by
means of the hand crank arrangement 34 through 36 about the
same axis in the Figure 5 embodiment, contrary to the
examiner’s assertions, is not automatic and not periodic and
not oscillatory as taught in Longhurst. In the context of the
rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner’s position at page 5 of the
answer appears to recognize that the manual oscillatory
adjustability of the antenna structure in Longhurst is not
automatic to the extent
claimed anyway. In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 3, 10, 11 and 15 through 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Longhurst is reversed.
Turning next to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of
the same claims in view of Gorton, we also reverse this
rejection. Contrary to the assertions of the examiner at page
4 of the answer, there is no periodic oscillation let alone an
automatic periodic oscillation to both the hour angle and the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007