Appeal No. 2001-1062
Application No. 08/910,297
USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Lastly, impermissible hindsight can not take the place of the
required evidentiary showing.
Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 5 is reversed. The
obviousness rejection of claims 6 through 15 is reversed because the multiplier teachings of Hwang
and the antenna wavelength separation distance teachings of Bottomley do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Lo and Iwasaki.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
PATENT SPECIALIST
COATS & BENNETT, P.L.L.C.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007