Appeal 2007-0473
Application 09/969,584
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by Tuttle (and thus also would not have been obvious). More
specifically, Appellants contend that “[t]here is nothing in Tuttle
describing a decentering device which is activated only in the
transmit mode, nor is there any discussion of achieving an efficiency
in the transmit mode which is less than in the receive mode.” (Br.
9). Appellants further contend that “Younis et al does not provide the
teaching lacking in Tuttle.” (Br. 11).
The Examiner contends that Tuttle teaches alternatives and the
alternatives include “that the decentering device is activated only in
the transmit mode.” (Answer 6).
We affirm.
ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner has failed to establish
Tuttle describes “means for decentering … to thereby achieve a lower
antenna efficiency in said send mode than in said receive mode” as
required by claim 1?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants invented a device for controlling and monitoring the power
of signals sent/received by a radiocommunications terminal including
a send circuit and a receive circuit connected to a send/receive
antenna of the terminal and respectively defining, when in operation, a
send mode and a receive mode and a circuit in a common part of the
connection of the send and receive circuits to the antenna for
matching the send and receive circuits to the antenna, which device
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013