Appeal No. 96-0750
Application 07/944,561
note that the examiner asserts that Rhodes teaches the inven-
tion of claim 1 except for detecting pulses in an RF system.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to apply the teachings of Rhodes to an RF pulse detec-
tor [answer, page 4]. Appellants argue that Rhodes does not
disclose any of the elements of claim 1. More particularly,
appellants argue not only that the Rhodes system will not work
on RF pulses, but also that the comparator in Rhodes does not
compare the delayed signal to a maximum value of the undelayed
signal as recited in claim 1.
In our view, appellants have properly identified two
differences between the invention of claim 1 and the teachings
of Rhodes. The first difference is the claimed detection of
RF pulses as opposed to Rhodes’ digital pulses. Although the
examiner has basically dismissed this difference as being
obvious, the examiner has failed to support this position with
any factual evidence on the record before us. The second
difference is the claimed comparison of delayed signals
against the maximum value of the undelayed signals. The
examiner never addresses the obviousness of this limitation in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007