Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
Shridhara is not limited to one-time use of the jamming detection and jamming
countermeasure operations, but rather allow subsequent use of the two operations.
From our review of Shridhara, both of which provide receivers that are
designed to continuously detect in-coming jamming signals, we find that the
teachings of Shridhara would have suggested to an artisan to perform jamming
detection and apply countermeasures for a subsequent second jamming signal.
When detecting the second jamming signal, Beesley’s teaching of determining the
rate of arrival of the jamming signal and adjusting the blanking signal based on the
rate of arrival would have further suggested determining the timing of the second
jamming signal and synchronizing the second blanking signal with the second
jamming signal based upon the timing.
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 23. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
23 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley
is sustained.
We turn next to claim 24. Appellants assert (Br. 19) that none of the references
teach determining the relative timing of the jamming signals. Although Beesley
teaches determining the timing of jamming signals, we find no suggestion for
determining the relative timing of the jamming signals. We conclude that the prior
art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 24. Accordingly,
we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 24 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.
We turn next to claim 25. Again, Appellants provide no specific arguments
regarding this claim, but generally argue (B. 20) that Shridhara and Beesley do not
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013