Appeal No. 2000-1557
Application 08/384,456
by the error correction decoding process of the data most likely
transmitted. Therefore, we sustain this rejection of claims 50
and 52.
We now consider the rejection of claims 14, 15 and 52
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure
of Blakeney. Anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner indicates how he finds the invention of
these claims to be fully met by the disclosure of Blakeney
[answer, page 4]. With respect to claim 14, appellants argue
that Blakeney does not describe a post-detect combining wherein
the first and second signals are decoded to produce first and
second demodulated signals [brief, pages 7-8]. The examiner
explains that the signal received at a mobile station is
demodulated by receivers 40 and 42 and then decoding is performed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007