Appeal No. 95-3346
Application 07/953,320
transmitted signal in Lee is accomplished by providing time and frequency
diversity of the signal and in French the same is accomplished by providing time and power diversity of
the signal. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have recognized
that the power diversity teaching of French with respect to transmitted signals was applicable to
transmitted signals of Lee to aid in the protection and preservation of Lee’s transmitted signals and, in
the reverse sense, that the frequency diversity teaching of Lee with respect to transmitted signals was
applicable to transmitted signals of French to aid in the protection and preservation of French’s
transmitted signals. Section 103 requires us to presume that the artisan has full knowledge of the prior
art in his field of endeavor and the ability to select and utilize knowledge therefrom. In re Deminski,
796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant has argued that the prior art does not teach random selection of frequencies, times or
power. At page 10 of his specification, appellant discloses that random selection increases the
probability of successful signal transmission. Dependent claims 7-9 include random selection. The
examiner’s position, stated without any basis in his answer, is that Lee selects times and frequencies
“substantially at random”. In his reply brief at pages 1 and 2, appellant has analyzed Lee’s relevant
disclosure to show that Lee does not provide random selection. The examiner’s answer to the reply
brief does not address appellant’s analysis of Lee.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007