Ex parte WATERS - Page 2




                   Appeal No. 1997-3854                                                                                                                             
                   Application No. 08/414,824                                                                                                                       

                                                                      BACKGROUND                                                                                    

                            The appellant's invention relates to a communications system using a sharply                                                            
                   bandlimited keying waveform.  An understanding of the invention can be derived from a                                                            
                                                              1                                                                                                     
                   reading of exemplary claim 10 , which is reproduced below.                                                                                       
                            10.       A method for transmitting a digital signal comprised of the steps of:                                                         
                                      sampling a first digital data signal to produce a digital data sample;                                                        
                                      generating a sharply bandlimited keying waveform for the digital data                                                         
                            sample;                                                                                                                                 
                                      weighting the sharply bandlimited keying waveform with a                                                                      
                            corresponding data sample value and truncating outside an appropriate time                                                              
                            interval;                                                                                                                               
                                      converting the weighted sharply bandlimited keying waveform into an                                                           
                            analog signal; and                                                                                                                      
                                      transmitting the analog signal.                                                                                               
                            The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                                                         
                   appealed claims are:                                                                                                                             
                   Waters et al. (Waters patent)                   4,468,794                              Aug. 28, 1984                                             
                   Tiemann                                         4,896,152                              Jan. 23, 1990                                             
                   Hawkins et al. (Hawkins)                        4,973,977                              Nov. 27, 1990                                             
                   Walker                                          5,185,765                              Feb. 09, 1993                                             



                            1We note that the language of claim 10 states “converting the weighted sharply                                                          
                   bandlimited keying waveform into an analog signal” rather than converting the weighted                                                           
                   and truncated waveform/data.  Therefore, the language of claims 1 and 10 is broader than                                                         
                   argued by the examiner and appellant.                                                                                                            
                                                                                 2                                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007