Appeal No. 97-0780
Application 08/330,265
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19 or claim 20 which depends
therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 11, the examiner asserts that the artisan would
have found it obvious to “read out store receive signal after a delay at different frequency to
simulate time delay spread signal because the receive signal introduced into by a fading
profile such as time delay spread and Doppler spread would simulate the effect of fading
channel [sic]” [answer, page 4]. Appellant basically argues that Argo would not have
suggested the invention as recited in claim 11 [brief, pages 8-9].
We note that independent claim 11 is substantially broader than independent
claims 1 and 19. Claim 11 does not define any relationship between the parameters t , f di w
and f . In other words, claim 11 only recites that samples are written into memory at a
Ri
write frequency f , samples are read from memory at a read frequency f , and that thew Ri
reading takes place at a time t after the writing. Claim 11 does not preclude the read and
di
write frequencies from being the same or from differing in any random way.
We are of the view that the invention as broadly recited in claim 11 is suggested by
the tapped delay line simulator described in Argo or shown in appellant’s admitted prior art
[Figure 3]. First, we note that a tapped delay line was conventionally known to operate as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007