Appeal No. 96-3023
Application No. 08/439,284
subsystems,” a “processing center,” “optical RF link systems”
that link the “two antenna subsystems” to the “processing
center, and an “object” that forms a “triangle” with the “two
antenna subsystems.”
Appellant concludes (paper number 13, page 4) that:
The apparatus as defined by the claims of the
instant invention is different in structure from
that defined by the claims of the invention No.
5,294,930. Appellant respectful [sic, respectfully]
submits that Examiner . . . did not see explicit
differences in the claimed structure of the instant
invention from that of invention No. 5,294,930.
Appellant further submits that Examiner did not
examine the independent claims as [a] whole.
Instead he picks only common pieces and throws away
many distinct parts.
We agree. In summary, the rejection is reversed because the
examiner has not provided a prima facie case to support the
conclusion that the claimed invention is an obvious variation
of the patented invention.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007