Appeal No. 2002-2291
Application No. 09/196,117
Moreover, we agree with appellants that the portion of Reudink, at column 6, lines 45-50,
would appear to suggest against the instant claimed subject matter. That portion reads:
With the present invention, substantial spacing is not required to maintain
signal separation. Each beam (from either a multiple-beam antenna or a
plurality of discrete antennas) has a different angular coverage (i.e. each beam
has a different view). Thus, angular rather than spacial diversity is achieved.
Thus, Reudink appears to suggest that it would be desirable to employ angular diversity
instead of spacial diversity.
Furthermore, as pointed out by appellants, at page 7 of the principal brief, the portion of
Newman on which the examiner relies relates to a spacial diversity system in which the antennas
are separated by several wavelengths, which appears to be the opposite of that which is being
suggested by Reudink. Accordingly, the artisans viewing these two references together would
never have sought to combine them in the manner suggested by the examiner because the
teachings are at odds with each other.
The examiner’s response is to contend that the references should be combined because
they “are in the same field of endeavor” [answer-page 6]. While it is important that references to
be combined, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, must be directed to analogous arts, meaning that
they should be within the same field of endeavor or, if not, then at least pertinent to the problem
with which the inventor was faced, the fact that the references are in the same field of endeavor
as the claimed subject matter is not sufficient, per se, to provide a sufficient motivation for
combining them. There must be something more to suggest the combination.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007