Appeal No. 2001-1062
Application No. 08/910,297
Claims 10, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lo
in view of Hwang.
Claims 11 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lo
in view of Hwang and appellants’ admitted prior art.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 13) and the answer (paper number 14) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 15.
With the exception of the examiner’s finding (answer, page 5) that Lo teaches
“constructively summing” first and second polarized signals, we agree with the remainder of the
examiner’s factual findings (answer, pages 4 through 6) concerning the teachings of Lo. We
likewise agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 6) that the phase detector 31 disclosed by
Lo is connected to only one of the antennas as opposed to two antennas as set forth in the claims on
appeal, and that the first and second polarized signals disclosed by Lo are not “depolarized
components of an original transmitted signal.” “[T]he examiner contends that the use of phase
detectors connected to two antennas is well known in the art, as taught by Iwasaki and the examiner
contends that the concept of obtaining depolarized components of an original transmitted signal is
well known in the art, as admitted by applicant[s]” (answer, page 6). Based upon the fact that
Iwasaki is in the same field of endeavor as the disclosed and claimed invention, and the fact that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007