Appeal No. 95-2102
Application No. 08/076,160
Burton discloses a wireless remote control device for
controlling the rotation of an antenna, but Hornback discloses
neither a remote control device nor “wireless” communication
of signals. In the absence of evidence in the record that
“the substitution of wired or wireless remote control is well
known in the art” (Answer, page 3), we can not agree with the
examiner that “it would have been obvious to provide Hornback
with the wireless remote control as taught by Burton” (Answer,
page 3). Without the evidence, we would have to resort to
impermissible hindsight to demonstrate the obviousness of the
claimed invention (Reply Brief, page 2). Thus, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 20 through 25 is reversed because
the examiner has failed to present a prima facie case of
obviousness.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 20 through
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, Jr. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007