Appeal No. 97-3561
Application No. 08/352,190
no structure in Lipsky for aligning and varying the alignments
of regenerated replicas as recited in the claims. The
examiner has not responded to any of these arguments made by
appellant in the reply brief.
We will not sustain any of the examiner’s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The examiner’s rejection seems to
assert that any optical interferometer in which two paths, one
having a delay and one not, are compared to each other meets
the claimed invention. We do not agree. The path delays in
the applied prior art are not capable of storing received RF
signals, regenerating replicas of these signals, and aligning
and varying the alignment of regenerated replicas. At best
the applied prior art shifts signals based on a comparison
between an undelayed signal and a delayed signal, but there is
no disclosure of varying the alignments of the regenerated
replicas. Appellant has presented compelling analysis that
the claimed delay loops are not disclosed by Weverka, Kiasaleh
or Lipsky, and the examiner has offered nothing in rebuttal.
Therefore, we do not sustain this rejection of the claims.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 have been rejected under
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007