Appeal No. 1997-1236
Application No. 08/212,385
recited functions on navigation RF signals. The examiner has
simply offered his bare conclusion that the claimed navigation
RF signals do not patentably alter the structure. We fail to
see how the teachings of Keolian and Kiasaleh would have
suggested the optical RF support network for transmitting and
receiving navigation RF signals as recited in the claimed
invention.
We also note that there are elements in the dependent
claims such as the stable clock [claim 3], means for
processing navigation messages [claim 4] and means for
reproducing stored navigation signals again and again [claim
6] which are nowhere suggested in the applied prior art and
which have been completely ignored by the examiner in making
the blanket rejection of all the claims. Thus, we are of the
view that the present record does not support a prima facie
case of obviousness of the claimed invention.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007