Appeal No. 1999-1802
Application No. 08/806,466
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, we
agree with appellants that the examiner’s rejection lacks support for the invention as
recited in independent claim 17. Therefore, we find that appellants have overcome the
rejection by having insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Appellants argue that the references when combined do not teach all of the claimed
limitations. (See brief at page 6.) We agree with appellants. Appellants argue that the
switch taught by Perry between the voter and the multiple transmission sources/sites
operates to control the transmissions rather than to couple the multiple versions of a
common source to any of the plural voters for voting purposes. (See page 4 of the
amendment inserted into the brief before the first line of page 4.) We agree with
appellants that Perry does not teach or suggest the switch controlling connection between
the reception sites and the voters where the switch is used in re-transmission of the signal
rather than in the reception.
Appellants argue that Lenchik does not teach the use of a signal switch to couple
different versions of a common source signal from base stations to any one of several
devices. (See brief at page 4.) We agree with appellants. Appellants further argue that
the only cited portion of Lenchik would not teach one skilled in the art that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007