Appeal No. 1999-2694
Application No. 08/684,651
In our view, the examiner has failed to properly analyze the instant claim language.
Each of the independent claims 1 and 10 specifically requires “a first channel in a first
portion of a frequency band” and a “second channel in a second portion of said frequency
band not including said first portion.” Thus, each of the recited first and second input
signals corresponds to a non-overlapping band of frequencies. Each of two transmitters
transmits one of the bands of frequencies. When a loss of output signals from one of the
transmitters is detected, both input signals are provided to the input of the other transmitter
so that the other transmitter then transmits the first and second channels.
We find nothing in Lux or Langseth which suggests two transmitters transmitting two
such “channels” where one channel corresponds to one band of frequencies and the other
channel corresponds to a non-overlapping band of frequencies. The examiner explains
that in Lux,
[d]ata from 22 of Fig.1A in Lux inherently corresponds [to] a
“first channel” in a “first portion of a frequency band” since the
portion of data assigned to transmitter 26a is communicated at
a first frequency which is inherently within the first portion of
the entire frequency band used to transmit the carriers. The same
is true for a “second input signal” at transmitter 26b and so on.
Each transmitter is operable at a unique frequency (channel) and
that frequency inherently is positioned within a relative portion
of the “microwave frequency band” disclosed by Lux (see column 2,
line 16). [answer-pages 11-12].
We do not find the “inherencies” to which the examiner refers. Lux teaches that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007