Appeal No. 1997-3153
Application 08/443,389
of a windshield as taught by Shaw [final rejection, pages 4-
5].
Appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
teach the essential feature of each of the independent claims
relating to a structure of an antenna utilized for a vehicle
which includes an electronic chip connected to said antenna
for demodulating a signal received by the antenna. Appellants
assert that it is critical that the demodulator be located at
the antenna so that the coaxial cable of Fumitaka can be
eliminated. Appellants also argue that Hahs mounts an entire
receiver with the antenna, whereas the claimed invention only
mounts a demodulator with the antenna. With respect to Shaw,
appellants argue that Shaw’s antenna cannot be used for ulta-
high frequency signals. Finally, appellants argue that there
is no motivation for combining the teachings of Fumitaka, Hahs
and Shaw absent an improper attempt to reconstruct the
invention in hindsight [brief, pages 5-11; reply brief].
After a careful review of the complete record in this
application, we agree with the position argued by appellants.
Although the invention of representative, independent claim 10
is drafted very broadly, we are compelled to conclude that
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007