Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
We turn next to claims 11-19. We reverse the rejection of claims 11-19 due to
their dependency from claim 10, and the deficiencies of Fielder.
We turn next to claim 23. Appellants assert (Br. 18) that Shridhara in
combination with Fielder do not teach 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. We agree. From our review
of Fielder, we find no suggestion of synchronizing a second blanking signal with a
second jamming signal based upon the determined timing of the second jamming
signal. We conclude that the prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 23. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 23
under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Fielder.
We turn next to claim 24. We reverse the rejection of claim 24 due to its
dependency from claim 23, and the deficiencies of Fielder.
We turn next to claim 25. Appellants assert (Br. 20) that Shridhara in
combination with Fielder do not teach synchronizing the blanking signal with the
jamming signal so that the blanking characteristic of the blanking signal at least
partially overlaps the jamming characteristic. We agree. In Fielder, the locally
generated bit stream is set so that the average value accumulated in the correlator
tends towards zero. In particular, the locally generated bit stream is characterized
as an alternating series of +1 and -1 values and is unrelated to the characteristic of
the jamming signal. From our review of Fielder, we find no suggestion for
synchronizing the blanking signal with the jamming signal so that the blanking
characteristic of the blanking signal at least partially overlaps the jamming
characteristic. We conclude that the prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013