Appeal 2007-0759
Application 10/177,732
PRINCIPLE OF LAW (2)
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. See Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS (2)
Appellant contends that the EM algorithm described by Siala is an
iterative and nonlinear algorithm (Br. 6; Reply Br. 4).
In view of the lack of a disclosure in Siala as to the type of equation
used to arrive at the likely channel, and the mention of linear only in
connection with a conventional receiver and algorithm, we agree with the
Appellant that Siala neither expressly nor inherently discloses the use of
linear equations to solve the EM algorithm.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has established that claims 1 to 17 are directed to
nonstatutory subject matter. Anticipation has not been established by the
Examiner for claims 1, 2, 4 to 9, 13, and 17 to 20 because Siala lacks the
required linear equations to estimate the channel. Obviousness of the
claimed subject matter set forth in claim 10 has not been established by the
Examiner because Alard fails to cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings
of Siala.
DECISION
The nonstatutory subject matter rejection of claims 1 to 17 is affirmed.
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 to 9, 13, and 17 to 20 is reversed,
and the obviousness rejection of claim 10 is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013