Appeal No. 2002-0992
Application No. 09/116,018
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the examiner seems to
assert that Raleigh teaches a CDMA mobile communication system but that Raleigh
fails to teach any of the steps recited in claim 1. The examiner finds, however, that
Talwar teaches each of the steps of claim 1 and that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to modify the system of Raleigh to include the teachings of Talwar [answer,
pages 2-4].
Appellant argues that Talwar fails to teach the step of eliminating multiple access
interference signals included in signals received at the reception angle of the desired
signal. Specifically, appellant argues that Talwar only discloses eliminating signals
which are outside the predetermined angle. Thus, appellant argues, Talwar allows
signals, such as interference signals, which are not desired and are within the
predetermined angle from the center of the null to be received [brief, pages 7-8].
The examiner responds that Talwar teaches that within the desired receiving
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007