Appeal No. 2001-1601
Application No. 08/404,406
substituting an electrically steerable antenna array for the
multiple directional antennas of Freeburg. We find no teaching
or suggestion in Vasile, and the examiner points to none, that
supports the examiner's assertion of inherency. Thus, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 9.
Claims 10 and 11, via their dependence from claim 9, as well
as claims 24 and 26, recite multiple azimuthal and multiple
elevational beams. The examiner combines Freeburg with Vasile
and Harbin to reject claims 10, 11, 24, and 26. As discussed
supra, none of the three references teaches or suggests this
claim limitation. Consequently, the combination fails to teach
or suggest the limitation, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 10, 11, 24, and 26.
Claim 23 and claims 25, 27 and 28, which depend therefrom,
do not recite multiple azimuthal and multiple elevational beams.
Thus, we first view claims 23, 25, and 28, which have been
rejected over Freeburg in view of Vasile. The examiner states
(Answer, page 11) that "Freeburg differs from the present claim
in that the antenna array is provided by multiple directional
antennas, instead of electronically steerable array antenna."
However, the examiner (Answer, page 11) notes that Freeburg
indicates (column 3, lines 39-42) that "a single electrically or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007