Appeal No. 1997-3153
Application 08/443,389
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
Since appellants have argued the claims as a single
group, we need only consider a single one of the independent
claims. We select claim 10 as the appropriate representative
claim. With respect to claim 10, the examiner cites Fumitaka
as teaching an antenna 3 integrated with an electronic chip 7
and formed on a glass surface. The examiner acknowledges that
Fumitaka does not teach that the electronic chip 7 is a
demodulator nor that the antenna is disposed between two glass
sheets. The examiner cites Hahs as teaching that it was known
to manufacture antennas and receivers (including demodulators)
on the same circuit board. The examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to replace the amplifier chip of
Fumitaka with a demodulator chip as taught by Hahs. Shaw
teaches that it was known to place vehicle antennas between
two glass sheets of a windshield. The examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to place the
Fumitaka-Hahs antenna and demodulator between two glass sheets
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007