Appeal No. 95-5053
Application 08/048,188
filter/receiver means would have been to reduce redundant
operation by two different passband/receiver means whose
passband operation is within close proximity to each
other, and hence reducing the number of components, cost,
etc.
Appellant argues that the prior art does not suggest
providing a single demodulating circuit for both cordless
telephone and cellular telephone frequency ranges (Br7) and
"[i]ndeed, the prior art exclusively uses separate
demodulating circuits for cellular and cordless frequency
bands" (Br8). Appellant further argues that "[m]erely the
inherent proximity of the bands does not suggest to the
artisan use of a common demodulating circuit" (Br7).
Appellant still further argues that the examiner's motivation,
"to reduce redundant operation," is misplaced and not
supported by the art of record (Br8).
While the examiner has set forth a plausible explanation
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to
provide a single demodulating circuit for demodulating
received signals in a combined frequency band including both
cellular and cordless received signals, the examiner has
presented no factual evidence of motivation that we can rely
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007