Appeal No. 2002-1146
Application No. 09/160,634
must extend to all material facts and must be documented on the
record, lest the ‘haze of so-called expertise’ acquire insulation
from accountability.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, we find the Examiner’s
arguments to be supported merely by the Examiner’s own expertise
instead of the evidence of record and the teachings of prior art
which are required in order to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. As pointed out by Appellant (reply brief, page 2),
there is nothing in the combination of Kurby with Gagnon and
Lusignan that may teach or suggest the specific movement of the
center line of the antenna away from the satellite. In our view,
even the Examiner’s discussions of the null portions in an
antenna reception pattern and the conclusion that the antenna
movement improves signal quality (answer, page 4) are
inconclusive for establishing obviousness because the references
suggest neither such movement of the antenna nor its placement
toward the null portions.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the
necessary teachings and suggestions related to the claimed
movement of the center line of the antenna away from the
interfering satellite, as recited in independent claims 1 and 8,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007