Appeal No. 2000-1519
Application No. 08/674,875
is no indication that these units comprise separate remote
antenna units. With no convincing rebuttal from the examiner, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants that column 37, lines
43-62, of Lemson suggests that the elements identified by the
examiner are nothing more than two range enhancing subsystems
provided in the same device, such as a base station, and not, as
suggested by the examiner, in separate remote antenna units.
Since we find no prima facie case of obviousness established
by the examiner, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10,
12, 13, 15-18 and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS )BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007