Appeal No. 2000-0406
Application No. 08/553,202
signal strength, and Ahl expressly states that continual contact with stations was a
drawback in the prior art.
We further note that Ahl mentions at col. 1, lines 30-32 that a drawback of the prior
art methods for sharing resources is that the central station disposed in the center of the
area must "be able continuously to reach the peripheral stations spread out in each cell
area or sector (e.g. within 360E or 90E.; see FIGS. 1 and 2." Ahl further discloses that an
object of the system is to minimize total power consumption and to minimize interference.
In view of these teachings, we find that a skilled artisan would not have been as readily
motivated to modify the teachings of Ahl to have a continuously rotating beam as the
examiner contends at pages 3-4 of the answer. The examiner maintains that if
interference and power consumption is not critical, then the skilled artisan would have been
motivated to adapt Ahl to use a continuous beam. (See answer at pages 4 and 6.) The
examiner provides no motivation for the conditional finding (id., page 6) that "if minimizing
interference and power consumption is not critical" it would have been obvious to use a
continuously rotating beam. We find that the examiner is relying upon speculation which is
not supported by the teachings or suggestions within Ahl. Furthermore, the examiner has
not provided any evidence or common knowledge in the relevant art to support the
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007