Appeal No. 1997-2246
Application 08/353,572
thereby providing time diversity, each stream being
offset in time (note message 1 in figure 1), and the
receiver can tune to the second transmitter, if it
does not receive the message from the first
transmitter, within the same time frame (note figure
7; column 12 lines 15-39 in reference to timing of
(706)). Each time slot is represented by the wide
pulse (of 706) and the time frame is represented by
channels 1-8.
The appellants argue that while Schwendeman discloses
that multiple transmitters may be required in each area, all
transmitters in each local area operate on the same frequency.
The appellants further argue that each transmitter in a local
area would transmit the same messages at the same time. Thus,
according to the appellants, Schwendeman discloses neither
frequency nor time diversity.
The examiner’s ground of rejection has been misread by
the appellants. It is transmitters 308 and 310 (Figure 3 of
Schwendeman) in different zones, ZONE 1 and ZONE 2, which are
used to satisfy the appellants’ claimed transmitters, not
multiple transmitters within the same zone. The examiner’s
explanation of the rejection explicitly refers to transmitters
308 and 310 on Figure 3 of Schwendeman, which operate on
different frequencies CH.1 and CH.2 and which transmit the
same messages in different time slots offset by one unit from
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007