Appeal No. 97-0780
Application 08/330,265
the RF signal for the propagation channel. In other words, claim 1 recites that the Doppler
shift is achieved by selection of the write and read rates rather than by the typical
mathematical algorithm. Argo suggests nothing about the relative rates at which sampled
data should be written into memory or read from memory. The examiner’s position that the
relationship of the parameters recited in claim 1 would have been obvious to the artisan
based on the Argo simulator is simply unsupported by Argo or any other evidence on this
record.
For the reasons just discussed, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Argo taken alone. Since claims 2-10 depend
from claim 1 and incorporate all the limitations of claim 1, we also do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2-10.
With respect to independent claim 19, the examiner applies Argo in the same
manner as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claim 19 specifically recites that a
delay between writing and reading a stored sample is a function of propagation path delay,
and that samples are stored and read at a first and second frequency which are related to
the Doppler shift in the frequency of the RF signal for the simulated channel. As we noted
above, Argo suggests nothing with respect to simulating Doppler shift by the relationship
between a write frequency and a read frequency of the memory. Therefore, independent
claim 19 is neither taught nor suggested by Argo for the same reasons discussed above.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007