Appeal No. 2002-2291
Application No. 09/196,117
We do note that after discussing the Figure 1 embodiment having a single antenna
assembly 101, Reudink does state, at column 5, lines 2-3, that in an alternate embodiment, “any
number of multiple beam antennas known in the art can be used.” Accordingly, Reudink does
appear to disclose “at least two antenna assemblies each providing a set of antenna beams...” On
the other hand, this cited portion may only mean that any one of many known multiple beam
antennas may be used. In any event, it may very well be that a case for anticipation of the instant
claimed subject matter might be made, based on Reudink, alone, but, the fact is, the examiner has
not made it since the examiner has not identified how each of the claimed elements corresponds
to something in Reudink. Moreover, the examiner has not made any rejection of the instant
claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and no such rejection is before us.
The rejection before us is a combination of Reudink and Newman and the examiner’s
rationale, as well as the response to appellants’ arguments, argues bits and pieces of the
references without a clear and cogent rationale as to how or why the artisan would have been led,
in any way, to combine the teachings of Reudink and Newman to arrive at the subject matter set
forth in independent claims 1, 18 and 24.
Accordingly, since the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
of the instant claimed subject matter by presenting a clear and cogent rationale that would have
led the skilled artisan to modify Reudink, in any manner, by some teaching of Newman, so as to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007