Appeal No. 96-0273
Application No. 08/246,387
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 through 6, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Taub.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections.
Tbe rejections under the first and second paragraphs of
35 U.S.C. § 112 stem from appellant’s use of the phrase “the
SAT noise power moving in an opposite direction from the SAT
signal power” (claims 1 and 7). According to the examiner
(Answer, pages 3 and 7), “[t]he method does not make or cause
the SAT noise power to move in an opposite direction from the
SAT signal power,” because the movement of the signals in the
opposite direction “is a natural phenomenon and which is not
done by the method.”
In response to the lack of enablement rejection,
appellant argues (Brief, pages 3 and 4) that:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007