Appeal No. 96-0365
Application 07/983,145
Appellants argue that neither Zakman nor Yokoyama teaches
or would have suggested the claimed separateness of the cables
(Brief, pages 5 through 12). The examiner's line of reasoning
for finding claims 27 and 28 obvious is as follows:
[I]t is recognized by the antenna artisan that at
some point along the receiver path and transmitter
path, there exists separate signal feeders to
respectively connect thereto. Thus, it would have
been obvious to a skilled artisan to separately
feed, by providing separate feed cables, to the
receiver and from the transmitter, when connecting
respective antennas in Zakman (Answer, pages 4 and
5).
. . . .
. . . The [Yokoyama] feedlines 61, 62 feed a common
line 63. [sic] however, it would have been obvious
to a skilled artisan to provide separate feedlines to
the transmitter and receiver (Answer, page 5).
. . . .
. . . [T]he suggestion of feeding separate receive
signals to feedpoint 521 and separate transmit signals to
feedpoint 519 to the receiver/from the transmitter had
been made and recognized by the skilled artisan as well
within the common knowledge thereof. In other words, it is
always obvious and taken for granted by the antenna
engineer that separate antennas, shown by Zakman or
Yokoyama et al and designed for separate transmit and
receive frequencies, may be separately fed or connected to
the transmitter or receiver. The mere history of
the communications arts leads the skilled artisan to
separate feeding because separate transmitters and
separate receivers were built before transceivers were.
. . The reference (i.e., either Zakman or Yokoyama et al)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007