Appeal No. 2002-1598 Page 8
Application No. 09/596,975
It therefore is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
claim 21, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 21 or, it follows, of claims 22-27,
31-36, 39 and 40, all of which are dependent from claim 21.
Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected as being unpatentable over the evidence
provided against claim 21, taken further with Official Notice that providing an airlink
between two antennas is conventional. Be that as it may, the second Official Notice
does not alleviate the deficiency in the references applied against claim 21, from which
claims 37 and 38 depend. This being the case, we will not sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007