Appeal 2006-3233
Application 10/046,596
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
being anticipated by Crawford.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Sep. 29, 2003) for the reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Jul. 21, 2003) and
Reply Brief (filed Nov. 24, 2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art
reference, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations that
follow.
Appellant argues that the term “integrated” has been expressly defined
at page 8 of the original specification. We find that the Specification at page
8, ll. 18-20, states “[a]s used herein, ‘integrated’ or ‘integrating’ means to
form or forming from material that forms a chassis and remaining
contiguous, in part, with the chassis.” We find that Appellant has expressly
defined these terms and it is unreasonable for the Examiner to interpret the
claims in a manner inconsistent with this definition. Since Crawford teaches
that the disclosed antenna is an add-on after the formation of the chassis, the
1 We do not find a statement of rejection for dependent claim 12 in the
Examiner’s text of the rejection, but the claim is similar to claim 7 so we
assume the Examiner intended the same rationale to apply to claim 12.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013