Appeal No. 2000-1557
Application 08/384,456
in the decoder 48. Thus, the examiner reads the first and second
demodulated signals on the outputs of the receivers 40 and 42
[answer, pages 12-13].
We agree with the examiner for the reasons given in the
response to arguments section of the answer. Since receivers 40
and 42 correlate the IF samples with the proper PN sequence, we
find that this operation constitutes a demodulation of the
incoming signals. Therefore, we sustain this rejection of claim
14.
With respect to claim 15, appellants argue that the cited
portion of Blakeney does not indicate that the base station
identifications are used in the same manner as the claimed first
and second codes. The examiner responds by further explaining
how he finds anticipation in the disclosure of Blakeney [answer,
pages 13-14]. We agree with the examiner that this further
explanation of the rejection indicates that the invention of
claim 15 is fully met by the disclosure of Blakeney. Since
appellants have not pointed out the flaw, if any, in this further
explanation, we sustain this rejection of claim 15.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007