Appeal No. 2001-1601
Application No. 08/404,406
Claims 9, 23, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Freeburg in view of Vasile.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Freeburg in view of Vasile and Graziano.
Claims 10, 11, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Freeburg in view of Vasile and
Harbin.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 33,
mailed July 14, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 32, filed April 17, 2000) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 12,
16, 17, and 19 through 29 and affirm the obviousness rejection of
claims 23, 25, 27 and 28.
Each of independent claims 1, 9, 12, and 16 recites, in
pertinent part, multiple coverage in both azimuthal and
elevational directions. The examiner (Answer, page 4) indicates
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007