Appeal No. 96-0273
Application No. 08/246,387
Appellant’s specification contains a complete
and full written description of appellant’s
invention and the method of making and using it so
as to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112. In particular,
appellant’s specification contains a description of
the manner in which the SAT noise power and SAT
signal power move in opposite directions. As
discussed at page 2 of appellant’s specification, FM
radio receivers (such as the type used in cellular
and wireless communications) generally exhibit a
phenomenon known as the “FM capture effect”. This
phenomenon causes the radio receiver to suppress the
noise when the power of the signal is greater than
the noise. Conversely, when the noise is greater
than the signal, the noise predominates, causing the
receiver to suppress the signal. This phenomenon is
depicted graphically in FIG. 3 and is further
discussed at pages 5 and 6 of appellant’s
specification.
Appellant’s response (Brief, page 4) to the
indefiniteness rejection is that:
Appellant’s claims comply with 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, because the claims clearly and
distinctly point out what appellant regards as his
invention. In particular, the claims are not
confusing regarding movement of the SAT noise power
and SAT signal power despite the examiner’s
contentions to the contrary. As discussed above
with respect to the
35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, rejection of
appellant’s claims, the movement of the SAT noise
power and SAT signal power in opposite directions
stems from the FM capture effect associated with FM
receivers. This effect is inherent with FM
receivers and is not directly attributable to
appellant’s method, let alone appellant’s step of
determining the SAT noise and signal power. Rather,
appellant’s method takes advantage of this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007