Appeal No. 2001-1601
Application No. 08/404,406
plane. However, we do not see how a teaching to narrow the beam
widths in the elevation plane suggests pointing in a plurality of
elevation directions (as in claim 1) or providing multiple
coverage in the azimuthal and elevational directions (as in
claims 9, 12, and 16). Likewise, we find no suggestion in Harbin
that multiple elevational directions with the plurality of
azimuthal directions is inherent in Freeburg. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 5,
7, 8, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, and 29 over Freeburg and Harbin.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the examiner adds Borras to the
combination of Freeburg and Harbin. We find no teaching or
suggestion in Borras to cure the deficiency of Freeburg and
Harbin. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 6 and 20.
The examiner rejected claim 9 over Freeburg in view of
Vasile. Freeburg, as explained supra, fails to teach anything
about the elevational direction of the antenna beams. The
examiner again asserts (Answer, page 10) that Freeburg
"inherently includes an omnidirectional elevation directions with
the plurality of azimuthal directions, which is inherent in the
antenna technology," without supplying any evidence of inherency.
The examiner (Answer, page 12) relies upon Vasile for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007