Appeal No. 2002-1032
Application No. 08/829,278
Since there is no special meaning ascribed to “antenna segment” by the
specification or the file history, and appellants have pointed to no such disclosure of a
special meaning, “antenna segment” is interpreted in an ordinary and customary
manner. That is, “antenna segment” is interpreted to be any portion, or a piece, of an
antenna. Contrary to appellants’ assertion, there is no requirement that such “antenna
segment” must have components that are passive or that a signal received on one
antenna segment must be present on all other segments.
Since we do not agree with appellants’ assessment that we were in error to
interpret each segment of Zarem’s antenna from the hub to each antenna station to be
an “antenna segment,” we also do not agree that no prima facie case of obviousness
has been established.
Appellants have not convinced us of error in our decision of March 21, 2003.
Accordingly, while we have granted appellants’ request for rehearing to the extent that
we have reconsidered our decision, that request is denied with respect to making any
changes therein.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007