Appeal No. 1998-2379
Application No. 08/315,942
The following references were relied upon by the
examiner:
Humphrey 4,660,025 Apr. 21,
1987
Andrews 4,920,335 Apr. 24,
1990
Martin al. (Martin)5,140,332 Aug. 18, 1992
Tuteur, “Wavelet Transformations in Signal Detection,”
IEEE, 1435-38 (1988).
Frisch et al. (Frisch), “The Use of the Wavelet Transform
in the Detection of an Unknown Transient Signal,” 38 IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, No. 2, 892-97 (Mar.
1992).
Claims 21, 32, 33, 36, 38 and 39 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Martin
in view of Tuteur or Frisch and in further view of
Andrews.
Claims 31 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Tuteur
or Frisch and Andrews and in further view of Humphrey.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 15
and 17) and the answer (paper number 16) for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejections of claims 21, 31 to 33,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007