Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
We turn next to claim 17. Because claim 17 recites subject matter analogous to
the subject matter recited in claim 7, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 17 for
the reasons we could not sustain the rejection of claim 7 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.
We turn next to claim 18. Because claim 18 recites subject matter analogous to
the subject matter recited in claim 8, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 for the
reasons we sustained the rejection of claim 8 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.
We turn next to claim 19. Appellants provide no specific arguments regarding
this claim, but generally argue that Shridhara and Beesley do not disclose the
claimed features. From our review of the record, we find that Shridhara discloses
storing a correlator output signal and identifying a characteristic of the jamming
signal by analyzing the stored signal (col. 4, ll. 39-43 and Fig. 9). Therefore, we
are in agreement with the Examiner that the teachings of Shridhara would have
suggested to an artisan the invention set forth in claim 19.
For the lack of any specific arguments by Appellants, and our agreement with
the Examiner’s position, we are not persuaded of any error in the part of the
Examiner regarding the rejection of claim 19. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
19 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley
is sustained.
We turn next to claim 23. Appellants provide no specific arguments regarding
this claim, but generally argue (Br. 18) that Shridhara and Beesley do not disclose
or suggest determining a timing of a second jamming signal and synchronizing a
second blanking signal with the second jamming signal based upon the timing of
the second jamming signal. In response, the Examiner asserts (Answer 8) that
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013