Appeal No. 96-2546
Application No. 08/001,825
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner
attempts to read the various limitations on the Lee reference
(Answer, page 3 which references the prior Office action, the
final rejection, designated as paper number 9). In response,
Appellant argues several alleged distinctions over Lee
including the contention (Brief, pages 24-26) that the
diversity combiner in Lee does not perform a comparing
operation on composite signals which provides an indication of
the direction of travel of a surface wave which would meet the
“means for comparing . . .” limitation of independent claim 1.
Appellant points to a passage (column 2, lines 7-9) in the Lee
reference which describes the operation of Lee’s diversity
combiner as combining the first and second output signals from
a hybrid circuit. In Appellant’s view, Lee’s diversity
combiner cannot reasonably be considered to be a comparator
which produces an output which indicates the direction of
travel of a surface wave as claimed.
Upon careful review of the Lee reference and the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007