Appeal No. 1997-1317
Application No. 08/371,995
is disclosed or inherent in the reference. Compare In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir.
1998) ("[o]n appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
[35 U.S.C. § 103] rejection by showing insufficient evidence
of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie
case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness."
Comparing claim 1 to Strauch, the examiner (Answer
at 3) reads the claimed "distance measuring device having a
frequency modulated radar -transmitter and -receiver" on
Strauch's duplexer-mixer 3 and directional transmitting-
receiving antenna 4, the claimed "frequency modulator" on
modulator 2, the claimed "signal processing circuit" on time
measuring device 7, and the claimed "phase control circuit" on
frequency discriminator 6.
Appellant argues (Brief at 14) that "Strauch clearly
teaches away from a radar unit by pointing out in column 1
that prior art devices ('the system described in these
specifications') use radar systems (lines 60+) which are
disadvantageous as they have a panoramic field of view."
Appellant is apparently relying on column 1, lines 59-67 of
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007