Appeal No. 95-0868
Application 07/987,552
We reverse but enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR §
1.196(b).
The examiner finds that the difference between the subject matter of claim 5 and Davis is that Davis
teaches only two receivers instead of the "at least three receivers" (Examiner's Answer, page 2). Appellant
argues two differences (Brief, page 9): "the absence of a selection means responsive to the strength of a
received signal for selecting a receiver and the absence of a third or even more receivers." It is not
necessary to address the question of the number of receivers because we conclude that the examiner has
erred in finding that Davis otherwise contains the structure as recited in claim 5.
Davis does not meet the limitations of claim 5 for at least the following reasons:
First, the high gain/low gain receiver in Davis is not the same as a high threshold level/low threshold
level receiver for detecting the digital data. "Threshold level" is the minimum signal level that can be
detected. "Gain" is the ratio of output to input, the amount of amplification of the input signal. Gain and
threshold level are different things. The examiner states that "Davis et al. teaches a selection means . . . for
connecting . . . that receiver having the lowest signal detection threshold level" (Examiner's Answer,
page 2), but errs in equating gain with threshold level. Therefore, the examiner has not shown that each
of the receivers in Davis "has a different signal detection threshold level for detecting the digital data" (claim
1).
Second, the claim limitation of "at least three receivers, coupled to the antenna, for receiving the
analog signal and for detecting the digital data wherein each of the . . . receivers has a different signal
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007