Appeal No. 2006-0406
Application 09/497,865
However, Chiba, Chang, and Aoki all teach forming multiple beams
using FFT techniques. Appellants argue (Br6):
Claim 5 is also believed to be independently patentable
since claim 5 requires that the antenna may be utilized on a
mobile vehicle. The cited references do not teach or
suggest this in association with the recitations of claim 1.
However, Karlsson is directed to an antenna for a mobile station
(cols. 1 & 2), which is a mobile vehicle, and Chiba also
discloses mounting the antenna on a mobile vehicle, a van.
Similar observations are made with respect to the remainder of
the claims. It must be assumed that appellants are relying on
the patentability of the parent claims or the arguments would be
misleading. We agree with the examiner's response (EA7-8) that
appellants have failed to show why the prior art in combination
does not meet the claim limitations. The rejection of dependent
claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14-18, 22, 25-29, and 31-36 is affirmed.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 19, 20, 23, and 24
We agree with the examiner's response (EA8) that appellants
have failed to show why Ajioka and Barrett do not meet the
limitations of these dependent claims. The rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 19, 20, 23, and 24 is affirmed.
- 17 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007