Appeal No. 97-0425
Application 08/330,335
Neither the examiner nor we propose to substitute Merlo’s
single channel device for Flannery’s two-channel device.
Rather, Merlo suggests that a Doppler filter should be
adjusted as a function of the velocity of the vehicle upon
which it is attached. This teaching is relevant regardless of
whether a single channel or two-channel device is used to
calculate Doppler frequencies.
In summary, we find each of appellant’s arguments set
forth in the brief to be more limited than the claimed
invention or to point out deficiencies in a reference which
were recognized by the examiner and overcome with the citation
of additional references. Accordingly, none of appellant’s
arguments, taken singly or in combination, is persuasive that
the rejection as formulated by the examiner is in error.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 17-25.
2. The rejection of claims 11-14 and
26-30 as unpatentable over Flannery in
view of Merlo.
Representative, independent claim 11 is similar to
claim 17 except that the signal processor of claim 17 is
specifically recited as containing parallel programmable
filtering means for each channel which are controlled by the
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007