Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex parte SHORT et al. - Page 5
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > Ex parte SHORT et al. - Page 5
Appeal No. 95-2867 Page 5
Application 07/744,324
noise present" by comparing the signal to a threshold voltage. The
fact that Inoue's squelch signal producing circuit 15 also contains a
"detector 151" or "noise detector 151a" for producing an envelope
signal does not affect the analysis because Appellants use the term
"comprising" in defining the steps of their claimed method. See
Genentech Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608,
1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining the effect of "comprising").
9. Inoue further processes the AM signal by producing a
squelch signal when the noise level in the filtered IF signal does
not meet some predetermined threshold. (3:60-62; 6:26-30.)
10. Claim 39, which depends from claim 34, further requires
that "said one portion [which is processed] is said first portion
[which was filtered]." Inoue produces a squelch signal based on
noise in the filtered frequency band. Although Inoue does not
specify that the squelch signal is related to the filtered frequency
band, we find Inoue must be squelching at least the filtered
frequency band since nothing in Inoue suggests any reason for squelch
any frequencies other than those in which noise is detected. We find
the examiner has sufficiently established that Inoue teaches the
limitation of claim 39 to shift the burden to Appellants. In re
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
