Appeal No. 96-0273
Application No. 08/246,387
phenomenon to provide a rapid and reliable method of
detecting the presence of the SAT. Appellant has
chosen to recite the opposite movement of the SAT
noise power and SAT signal power in the step of
determining the SAT noise power to assure proper
antecedent basis. Obviously, appellant could not
have recited that the SAT noise power and SAT signal
power move in opposite directions without having
recited the step of determining the SAT noise power
in the first place. As presently written, claims 1
and 7, and those that depend therefrom, clearly and
concisely point out what appellant regards as his
invention.
Although the “FM capture phenomenon” (specification, page
2) causes the SAT signal power and the SAT signal noise power
to move in opposite directions, appellant can still properly
claim the inherent by-product of the “FM capture phenomenon”
as part of his overall method of detecting the presence of the
SAT. Thus, we agree with appellant that the claims on appeal
fully comply with the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. The rejections of claims 1 through 8 under the first
and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112 are reversed.
In formulating the obviousness rejection, the examiner
recognized (Answer, page 5) that Wang does not compare the SAT
signal power to the SAT signal noise power. Wang compares the
SAT signal power to a threshold value (column 5, line 51; and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007