Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
teach synchronizing the blanking signal with the jamming signal by generating a
blanking signal with a blanking characteristic that at least partially overlaps the
jamming characteristic of the jamming signal. We disagree. Beesley discloses a
blanking signal that is generated by “stretching” the detected jamming signal (p. 1,
ll. 69-72). In particular, Beesley explains that the detected noise pulse of the
jamming signal is stretched in duration and output as the blanking signal, thereby
generating a blanking signal having a pulse width wider than the pulse width of the
jamming signal (p. 3, ll. 48-55). The blanking signal that results from this process
is applied as a control signal for the blanking circuit (p. 2, ll. 1-5). The blanking
circuit functions as an attenuator and reduces the jamming signal by attenuating the
received signal in accordance with the blanking signal (id.).
From our review of Beesley, we find that in order to reduce any portion of the
jamming signal, the blanking signal must be synchronized with the jamming signal
so that it at least partially overlaps the jamming signal. Otherwise, the blanking
circuit would not have any effect on the jamming signal. For instance, instead of
attenuating the jamming signal, the blanking circuit would attenuate only those
portions of the received signal that do not include the jamming signal. This is
clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the blanking circuit, which is to reduce the
jamming signal. From the disclosures of Shridhara and Beesley, and in particular,
from Beesley’s disclosure of generating the blanking signal by stretching the
jamming signal, an artisan would have been taught to synchronize the blanking
signal with the jamming signal by generating a blanking signal with a blanking
characteristic that at least partially overlaps the jamming characteristic of the
jamming signal.
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013