Ex Parte CANADA et al - Page 5




               Appeal No. 2001-1062                                                                                                 
               Application No. 08/910,297                                                                                           


                       We agree with appellants’ arguments.  The same field of endeavor is merely the jumping-off                   
               point in the determination of obviousness of the claimed invention.  The examiner must still make a                  
               prima facie case that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to select and combine the                    
               teachings of the references.  The establishment of such a case is weakened by the numerous                           
               teachings in Lo that the polarized signals are not “constructively” combined but are combined to                     
               reduce/cancel portions of the two signals (column 3, lines 15 through 44; column 4, lines 58 through                 
               65; and column 5, lines 26 through 64).  The examiner’s case is further weakened by the fact that Lo                 
               is directed to a polarization diversity receiver whereas Iwasaki is directed to a frequency diversity1               
               receiver.  The examiner has not come to grips with this major difference between the teachings of                    
               Lo and Iwasaki.  Besides, the examiner’s case is fatally weakened by the absence in the record of a                  
               factual basis in the record (e.g., the references of record) for making the suggested modifications to               
               the teachings of Lo.  A finding of motivation to combine the teachings of the references is essential                
               in an obviousness determination, and it must be “based on evidence of record,” and not the                           
               examiner’s “subjective belief and unknown authority.”  In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343-1344, 61                       




                       1 But for the frequency diversity teachings of Iwasaki, it appears that the remainder of the                 
               teachings of Iwasaki are remarkably similar to the structure and steps set forth in claims 1 and 10,                 
               respectively.  Figures 1 and 2 of Iwasaki disclose two antennas 10a and 10b with a phase detector                    
               51 connected to receive signal inputs from both of the antennas, a variable phase shifter 52 to                      
               adjust the phase of one of the antenna signal inputs, and a combiner/adder 53 to constructively                      
               sum the two signal inputs.  Such teachings are highlighted for review by both the examiner and                       
               appellants.                                                                                                          
                                                                 5                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007