Appeal No. 96-0273
Application No. 08/246,387
column 8, lines 35, 36, 43, 65 and 67). The examiner is of
the opinion (Answer, page 5) that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to incorporate the well known use of determining the
noise power of a signal and comparing the signal
power to the noise power, as evidence [sic,
evidenced] by Taub et al, in the method for
detecting the presence of a SAT signal for the
purpose of determining the minimal transmission
power and reception capabilities of the SAT signal
in order to detect a SAT signal superimposed on a
voice/data signal.
We agree with the examiner (Answer, page 10) that Taub
provides evidence (page 610) that it is well known in the art
to compare a signal power to a noise power to derive a signal-
to-noise ratio. On the other hand, we do not agree with the
examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Wang with the signal-to-noise ratio
teachings of Taub because Wang already compares the SAT signal
power to a threshold value. The idea to collect SAT signal
noise power, and to then use it in a comparison step of a
method for detecting the presence of the SAT signal comes from
appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention, and not from the
applied references. The obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 6, 9 and 10 is reversed because a prima facie case of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007