Appeal No. 1998-2379
Application No. 08/315,942
generating the basis wavelet as noted in the last
paragraph under wavelet transforms on page 1436, and
because wavelets are well adapted to short-time signals
such as for example in radar where the signals are very
short.” Humphrey represents the state of the electronic
surveillance marker art prior to appellants’ invention.
Appellants argue (brief, page 4) that the examiner’s
rejections are erroneous because: (1) the art applied is
nonanalogous to the claimed invention; (2) the means-
plus-function claim limitations were not interpreted in
the manner required by the Court in In re Donaldson Co.,
16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994); and (3)
there is no motivation to combine the references. The
appellants’ fourth argument is merely an amalgamation of
the first three arguments and therefore does not require
a separate analysis.
Appellants present compelling arguments about the
nonanalogous nature of Martin to the claimed invention
(brief, pages 9 and 10). Martin is a radar system that
detects the presence of an object by bouncing a signal
off of that object. Appellants’ invention uses signal
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007