Appeal No. 97-3561
Application No. 08/352,190
U.S.C. § 102.
Appellant’s initial appeal brief did not respond to
any prior art rejections. A reply brief was filed by
appellant which was entered by the examiner with a statement
that “no further response by the examiner is deemed necessary”
[Paper No. 14]. The reply brief contains arguments by
appellant as to why the disclosures of Weverka, Kiasaleh and
Lipsky do not anticipate the claimed invention.
With respect to Weverka, appellant argues that there
is no apparatus to regenerate replicas from a signal pulse.
Appellant also argues that the dither means of Weverka are not
RF delay loops. Finally, appellant argues that there is no
structure in Weverka for aligning and varying the alignments
of regenerated replicas as recited in the claims. With
respect to Kiasaleh, appellant argues that there is no
apparatus to regenerate replicas from a signal pulse.
Appellant also argues that Kiasaleh’s phase shifting delay
loop does not have the alignment capabilities recited in the
claims. With respect to Lipsky, appellant argues that Lipsky
does not teach or suggest any delay loops or anything
resembling a delay loop. Appellant also argues that there is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007