Appeal No. 2002-0611
Application No. 09/234,229
OPINION
The examiner relies on Figure 8, and column 8, lines 9-33, of Gersheneld for
teaching a PAN transmitter and receiver antennae on a keyboard associated with a
computer. Appellants do not dispute this much.
The examiner contends that although Gersheneld does not expressly disclose
receiver antennae that can be described as “elongated and extending substantially
across the keyboard from substantially the left side to substantially the right side” the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious in view of Gersheneld because of “the
functional equivalence of the array of receiver antennae [of Gersheneld] and the
substantially elongated antenna, the only difference in the reference and the prior art is
size” [answer-page 3]. Presumably, the examiner intended the last phrase to compare
the “instant claimed invention” and the prior art, rather than the “reference” and the prior
art. The examiner also explained that “an elongated antenna would be more apt to
information input, errant or otherwise, as well as the tradeoff (in additional material) to
determine accurate information reception” [answer-page 3].
This reasoning by the examiner appears to us to be a rationale gleaned from
impermissible hindsight since only appellants appear to have disclosed an elongated
antenna of the type claimed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007