Appeal No. 97-0780
Application 08/330,265
examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner points out that Argo teaches an
RF multipath propagation channel simulator in which input data is sampled, processed in a
simulator and output. The examiner notes that the simulator of Argo accounts for
propagation delays, Doppler shift and time delay spread [answer, page 3]. The examiner
concludes that the simulator taught by Argo would have suggested to the artisan the
obviousness of the invention recited in claim 1. The examiner’s position is either that the
simulator of Argo inherently or implicitly performs the method of claim 1 because Argo
accounts for Doppler shift and time delay spread parameters or that the method of claim 1
would have obviously been suggested based on the simulator of Argo.
Appellant argues that Argo does not teach the memory as recited in claim 1, and
that Argo does not teach or suggest the relationship of parameters t , f and f as reciteddi w Ri
in claim 1 [brief, pages 7-9].
We agree with appellant that Argo does not teach or suggest the simulation method
as recited in claim 1. A key feature of claim 1 is that delay times t are selected to
di
correspond to propagation channel delay times, and the difference between the write
frequency f and the read frequency f corresponds to the Doppler shift in the frequency ofw Ri
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007