Appeal No. 2001-1427
Application No. 09/107,795
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that while claims 1-15 stand rejected, as indicated by the
examiner in the final rejection as well as the answer, and as acknowledged by appellant
at pages 1 and 3 of the brief, appellant apparently argues only the rejection of
dependent claims 4, 10 and 13. Note the statement of issues at the top of page 3 of
the brief. Accordingly, in view of no arguments presented by appellant with regard to
claims 1-3, 5-7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is summarily sustained.
Our focus is on claims 4, 10 and 13 and the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Stein.
Claims 4, 10 and 13 add only the limitation that there is an antenna pivotally
mounted to said adaptor. Clearly, there can be no dispute about Stein showing this
specific limitation since column 7, lines 34-36, clearly states that “The particular
modular antenna structure 138 of FIG. 8 includes an antenna bar 140, which is pivotally
mounted through pivot antenna mount 141...” Accordingly, appellant relies on
limitations appearing in independent claims 1, 8 and 12 for the patentability argument,
yet, surprisingly enough, appellant does not argue the independent claims separately.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007