Appeal No. 96-0423
Application 08/126,439
geosynchronous satellite as discussed in the paragraph
bridging columns 1 and
2 of Longhurst, the artisan would have needed to perform an
automatic periodic oscillatory tracking arrangement for both
the hour angle and declination to maximize signal strength by
utilizing the motorized arrangement of Longhurst, especially
in view of the teachings of motorizing the hour angle changes
of satellites from Rothbarth and Crean. At a minimum,
therefore, it appears to us that the examiner has presented a
prima facie case of obviousness of independent claim 3 on
appeal. The collective teachings of the three references also
would have indicated to the artisan the desirability of the
combination since the ability to track utilizing the combined
structure more than one satellite would have been clearly an
obvious advantage to the combination as well.
On the other hand, we must reverse the rejection because
the examiner has not come to grips with the full meaning of
the "oscillation means" recitation in the body of claim 3 on
appeal. The combined teachings of the references for this
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 would have indicated to the
artisan separate motorized arrangements for automatically
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007