Appeal No. 96-3086
Application No. 08/306,906
having too low a strength value, it would appear that, under
that circumstance, Marui could not, as required by the instant
claims, transmit a second RF signal containing a message
conveying the representation of signal strength.
We also note that while the examiner recognizes that
Marui does not teach a test fixture system for transmitting
the first RF signal, the examiner contends that it would have
been obvious to connect the Marui circuitry to a test fixture
because skilled artisans “would have wanted to certify that
the cellular system’s signal strength measuring circuitry was
functioning appropriately” [answer-page 4]. In responding to
appellants’ argument in this regard, at page 6 of the answer,
the examiner explains further that the skilled artisan
would have been clearly motivated to test the Marui
signal strength to ensure that it could correctly
recognize a given signal’s strength. In order to
accomplish this objective, a test fixture would
transmit signals of known strength to Marui’s system
to be analyzed by the Marui system for signal
strength. The test would be completed when the
Marui system generated a multi-bit digital
representation of the signal strength as registered
within Marui’s cellular apparatus, and transmits
this digital representation back to the test
fixture. Only in this way can one of ordinary skill
determine if the signal strength circuitry of Marui
is operating effectively.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007