Appeal No. 2002-1032
Application No. 08/829,278
was not consistent with the examiner’s definition. Appellants also contend that we
erred in determining that a skilled artisan would have understood each segment, or
branch, from the hub to each antenna station in Zarem to be an “antenna segment” and
that our determination of such is improperly based on our own understanding or
experience. Based on these arguments, appellants contend that our decision was
flawed because there was no prima facie case of obviousness established.
With regard to the alleged new ground of rejection, the examiner pointed to
antenna stations 11 of Zarem as the claimed “anetenna segments” and we merely
elaborated on this allegation to note that these antenna stations are connected to a hub
and that the artisan would have understood each segment, or branch, from the hub to
each antenna station to be the claimed “antenna segment.” Thus, while we may have
applied the Zarem reference in a manner somewhat different than did the examiner, this
does not constitute a new ground of rejection. In re Halley, 296 F.2d 774, 778, 132
USPQ 16, 20 (CCPA 1961); In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 495, 131 USPQ 263, 266 (CCPA
1961).
With regard to the allegation that we erred in determining that a skilled artisan
would have understood each segment, or branch, from the hub to each antenna station
in Zarem to be an “antenna segment,” as claimed, appellants now submit declaration
evidence purported to show that the artisan would not have understood such segments
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007