Appeal No. 96-0418
Application 08/051,321
Gaskill and Andros both are concerned with a paging system.
Each does show a controllable reactive element, element 14 in
each, and a feedback antenna tuning controller, element 16 in
Gaskill and 44 in Andros, but neither reference discusses the
problems associated with a high Q antenna tuning system. The
term “high Q antenna” is defined in the specification as an
antenna having a Q greater than 100 [specification, page 2,
lines 5 to 7]. We further find that Rosen relates to a photon
energy activated radio frequency signal switch and describes
the use of such a switch to an “antenna 90, which may be a
short high-Q antenna.” [column 4, lines 36 to 37]. We find
that Rosen also does not teach or suggest the feature of
either “a high Q ... range,” [claim 1, lines 3 to 5], or the
use of “a controllable reactive element ... in a high Q
resonant circuit ... range,” [claim 1, lines 6 to 9].
The Federal Circuit states that “[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.” In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007