Appeal No. 1997-1982
Application No. 08/483,886
reception end of the communication but also the transmission
end of the data flow." However, Heichler includes no
suggestion for such a modification, and in fact limits his
invention to the reception unit by stating (column 5, lines 7-
15) that although the two data streams inherently have
interference, the phase ambiguity to be corrected "is
associated with the carrier recovery in the demodulator" and
is caused by the process of demodulation. Further, the
examiner has failed to provide any references to suggest the
modification. Accordingly, Heichler does not optimize
transmission performance, as required by claim 1.
The examiner further contends (Answer, page 8) that
Heichler's resolution of phase ambiguity between two signals,
Q1 and Q2, equates to the claimed control of a relative phase
between two transmitted propagation modes. However, signals
Q1 and Q2 are emitted by the demodulator at the input side of
the decoder and relate to modulation techniques. On the other
hand, as indicated by appellants (Reply Brief, page 3),
"the propagation mode is related to the electric and magnetic
field pattern of the transmitted signal," and is different
from the modulation techniques. Thus, Heichler does not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007