Appeal No. 2002-2304
Application No. 09/419,157 Page 13
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 11-14, 16, 20,
21, 23-29, 31, 33-42, 44, 49-56, 58, 63-73, 75, and 79-82 because
there is no evidence in the record to establish that an artisan
would have been motivated to space the connectors of Zhu to
attenuate at least one prespecified frequency electromagnetic
energy waveform, as required by independent claims 13 and 28, or
to provide a virtual fence against at least one prespecified
frequency electromagnetic energy waveform as recited in
independent claims 39, 53, and 70. Accordingly the rejection of
claims 11-14, 16, 20, 21, 23-29, 31, 33-42, 44, 49-56, 58, 63-73,
75, and 79-82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
In addition, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3,
5-8, 15, 17-19, 22, 30, 32, 34, 35, 43, 45-48, 57, 59-62, 74, and
76-78, because the additional references to Schuchmann, Swamy,
Oberstarr, and Wojnarowski do not make up for the basic
deficiencies of Zhu. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 3, 5-
8, 15, 17-19, 22, 30, 32, 34, 35, 43, 45-48, 57, 59-62, 74, and
76-78 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007