Appeal No. 2000-2261
Application 08/730,670
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 7, 26, 27 and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Denheyer. We are in
general agreement with the positions set forth by appellant in
the brief and reply brief as to this issue. This reversal
applies to our consideration of both the Figure 1 and Figure 3
embodiments in Denheyer.
Moreover specifically, although prior art Figure 1 of
Denheyer shows a digital signal processor 10 and IQ or digital
modulator 12 along with an analog or FM modulator 26, all of
which are required by independent claim 1 on appeal, the claimed
requirement of the analog modulation means receiving the I and Q
outputs from the digital signal processor is not shown in Figure
1 and is also not taught with respect to the discussion of this
figure at column 1 of Denheyer. Figure 1 only shows that the DSP
10 sends the respective IQ signals to the IQ modulator 12 and not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007