Ex parte MUIRHEAD - Page 7

          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              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007