Ex parte WATERS - Page 3




              Appeal No. 1997-3854                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/414,824                                                                                  

              Newhall                             5,448,206                   Sep. 05, 1995                               
                                                                (Filed Oct. 18, 1993)                                     
              Helms et al., “Truncation Error of Sampling-Theorem Expansions,” Proceedings of the IRE,                    
              pp. 179-84, 1962.                                                                                           
              Croisier et al., “The Digital Echo Modulation,” IEEE Transactions on Communication                          
              Technology, Vol. COM-18, No. 4, pp. 367-76, 1970.                                                           
              Waters et al., “Bandpass Signal Sampling and Coherent Detection,” IEEE Transactions on                      
              Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. AES-18, No. 4, pp. 731-36, 1982.                                     
                     Claims 1, 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                        
              over Newhall in view of (Helms et al. or Waters et al. or the Waters patent) in view of                     
              (Walker or Croisier et al. or Hawkins or Tiemann).                                                          
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                    
              appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's                         
              answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Apr. 22, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of                      
              the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed Apr. 2, 1997)  for the                    
              appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                                                         


                                                        OPINION                                                           

                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the                  
              appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                       
              respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence of                    
              our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                        

                                                            3                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007