Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
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 25. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
25 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley
is sustained.
We turn next to claim 26. Appellants assert (Br. 19) that none of the references
teach determining the pulse rate of the jamming signal. Contrary to Appellants’
assertion, Beesley’s disclosure of determining the rate of arrival of the jamming
signal would have suggested to an artisan to determine the pulse rate of the
jamming signals. Nonetheless, we find no suggestion in Beesley for generating a
blanking signal having substantially the same pulse width and pulse rate
characteristic as the jamming signal. We conclude that the prior art fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 26. Accordingly, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 26 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Shridhara in view of Beesley.
Next, we turn to the rejection of claims 1-19 and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Fielder. Regarding claim
1, the Examiner's position (Answer 3-5) is that Shridhara does not disclose that the
jamming signal has a known pattern and that a blanking signal has a pattern similar
to the jamming signal and synchronized with the jamming signal. To overcome
this deficiency of Shridhara, the Examiner turns to Fielder for a teaching of a
jamming signal having a known pattern and reducing the jamming signal with a
blanking signal having a pattern similar to and synchronized with the jamming
signal (id.).
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013