Appeal No. 1998-0743
Application 08/214,169
does not compete with other signals for space in the available
electromagnetic frequency spectrum. Accordingly, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
modify the Lenhardt apparatus in view of Kimball as proposed
by the examiner since to do so would solve no problem and
serve no purpose. The mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in the manner suggested by the examiner does not make
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claim 7, the only other
independent claim, we do not agree with the examiner’s
position at pages 4-5 of the answer that,
Since Lenhardt teaches the frequency
transposion [sic : transposition] which shifts
the frequency from a normal audiometric range to
the supersonic range; it therefore would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art to
provide the digital interpolator means, as
taught by Engebretson et al., in the digital
Lenhardt system to increase the sampling rate of
the frequency digital signal to the frequency
upshifting electrical carrier signals. This
would provide more accuracy for the sampling
signals.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007