Appeal No. 1997-3969
Application No. 08/175,052
of the claim require a phase mapping of subaperture segments
to centroids before the back propagation takes place. The
examiner has never addressed how these steps are taught by
Haines in order to support this rejection. The mere statement
that these steps are taught by Haines without explanation is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8-11.
With respect to the rejection of claims 12-17 and 26-
29, these claims all have limitations similar to those of
claim 8 that we just considered. The examiner’s rejection of
these claims also fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 12-17 and 26-29.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-7 and 18-25, but we have not sustained the
rejection of claims 8-17 and 26-29. Therefore, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1-29 is affirmed-in-part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007