Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
Furthermore, the Examiner concludes that the increased signal
quality of the prior art is achieved by moving the antenna and
placing the interfering signal in “NULL” (answer, page 11).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a conclusion of
obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce a factual
basis supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to
be common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner must not only identify the
elements in the prior art, but also show “some objective teaching
in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art would lead the individual to combine
the relevant teachings of the references.” In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
A review of the applied prior art confirms that Kurby merely
teaches a satellite communications system having a steerable
antenna array (col. 2, lines 40-42) that is controlled by
steering control and system control 680 (Fig. 5, col. 5, lines
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007