Appeal No. 2000-0406
Application No. 08/553,202
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed Oct. 14, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed Jul. 31, 1998) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that Ahl does not teach or suggest the use of continuous rotation
of the antenna as recited in the language of claim 1. (See brief at page 3.) Appellant
further argues that skilled artisans would not have been motivated to modify the discrete
sampling of Ahl to a continuously rotating beam. (See brief at page 3.) Appellant argues
that Ahl teaches away from the present invention. (See brief at page 3.) We agree with
appellant's that Ahl does teach away from the claimed invention since continually rotating
the beam would have required higher power, produced more interference and variation in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007