Appeal 2007-1267
Application 09-967617
Rejection of Claim 8 over Sklar in view of Friedman
With respect to the rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Sklar in view of Friedman, we note in Friedman a multiple beam antenna
used for communication with satellites. Appellants argue that the Friedman
antenna beams “appear to teach one signal.” (Br. 9). The claim requires a
plurality of dynamic links, not signals. Sklar fully teaches that limitation.
(See remarks on Claim 1 above.). We find no error in this rejection.
Rejection of Claim 11 over Sklar in view of Kikinis
With respect to the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Sklar in view of Kikinis, Appellants argue that Kikinis has nothing to
do with broadcasting television signals over a communications system.
(Br. 9). We accept the argument of the Examiner (Answer 17) that Sklar
provides the “omitted teachings” as covered in the discussion of Claim 1.
As we consider the teachings of both references in a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103, we do not find error in the rejection.
Rejection of Claims 10, 12, and 13 over Sklar in view of Turcotte
With respect to the rejection of Claims 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Sklar in view of Turcotte, in viewing the latter reference we
find that Digital Signal Processor (#99) routes single signals to and from the
multiple connections to Digital Beam Former (#95). (Col. 6, ll. 35). Thus
the digital signal processor is programmed to perform the functions of a hub
and router, as claimed. We do not find error with Examiner’s argument, as
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013