Appeal No. 2000-2253 Page 7
Application No. 08/798,137
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.’" In re Bell, 991 F.2d
781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of Daniel or
Dent cures the deficiency of Wiedeman. Absent a teaching or suggestion that a device
receives communication signals from a satellite at different carrier bandwidths in
different modes, the examiner fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 15, and 17.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 16, 18 under § 102(e)
and of claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 15, and 17 under § 103(a) are reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007