Appeal No. 97-0425
Application 08/330,335
Merlo’s Doppler velocities using phase locked loops as
suggested by Fritzlen. Appellant’s argument does not address
the examiner’s rationale for combination at all. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 16.
4. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-9
as unpatentable over Gabbitas in view
of Flannery and Merlo.
Representative, independent claim 1 is similar to
claim 11 and additionally recites details of a dual sensing
channel Doppler module. The examiner cites Flannery and Merlo
for the same reasons discussed above, and the examiner
observes that Gabbitas teaches a Doppler module of the type
claimed [Final Rejection, page 5]. The examiner’s rationale
for combining the teachings of Flannery and Merlo with those
of Gabbitas is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Appellant’s arguments are directed to the same alleged
deficiencies in Flannery and Merlo which have been discussed
above. Appellant’s arguments again do not address the
examiner’s rationale for making the proposed combination.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-9.
5. The rejection of claims 4 and 5 as
-13-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007