Appeal No. 2006-1203
Application No. 10/370,976
frequency of the antenna instead of the operating frequency ranges of the first and the
second elements.
Considering the arguments presented and addressed above, we find the
Examiner’s position to be sufficiently reasonable to support a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claims 4, 5 and 11-16 but not with respect to claim 2.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4, 5 and 11-16 over Tran and Zibrik is
sustained while the rejection of claim 2 cannot be sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of claims 7-9 over Tran and Snowdon
Turning now to the rejection of claims 7-9, we note that Appellants’ arguments in
support of patentability of these claims include assertions similar to those addressed
above with respect to claim 1 (brief, pages 14-15). We are unpersuaded that the
claimed first and second elements require anything more than what Tran discloses and
the specific types of antenna configurations would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art based on the teachings of Tran and Snowdon, as set forth by the
Examiner (answer, page 4 & 13). As such, and for the reasons similar to those
underlying our conclusion with respect to claim 1, we find that the Examiner has set
forth a reasonable case of prima facie obviousness and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 7-9 over Tran and Snowdon should be sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007