Appeal 2007-1362
Application 09/972,107
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Vannatta and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Vaisanen.
We affirm-in-part.
ISSUES1
1. Does Collar’s row of switches 8 function as a single rail output
switching network for coupling an amplifier network and an antenna
network, as required by claims 1 and 11?
2. Do Collar’s row 8 switches provide the types of connections
required by claims 1, 18, 20, and 22?
3. Do Vannatta’s switches 121 and 130 function in the manner
required by claims 18 and 20?
4. Do Vaisanen’s switches SW1 and SW2 function in the manner
required by claims 18 and 20?
1 The issues as stated herein represent the contentions of Appellants,
who have the burden on appeal to the Board to point out the errors in the
Examiner’s position. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460,
43 USPQ2d 1030, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e expect that the Board's
anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation basis, with
specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory
explanations for such findings.") (emphasis added); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 985-86, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the
Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima
facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013