Appeal No. 2005-1577
Application No. 09/581,159 Page 11
USPQ2d 1453, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Any such showing must be
clear and particular. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50
USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the present case,
sufficient evidence to establish such a suggestion is not made
manifest in the examiner’s stated rejection based on the
teachings of the applied references. We conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of appealed claims
1, 5, 7-9, 18 and 19.
Since the examiner has not established how Glaser as
additionally applied to dependent claims 2 and 3 makes up for the
above-noted deficiencies, we shall likewise reverse the
examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 3.
Nor has the examiner made clear how Carter, as additionally
applied to dependent claim 6, and which is directed to
architectural glass panels with a patterned appearance, would
have been suggestive of a modification of the antenna arrangement
of Winter so as to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
appellants’ claimed subject matter. The examiner simply has not
established how the disparate teachings of Carter would have
suggested modifying an antenna connector of Winter in any
fashion, much less in a manner such that a process corresponding
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007