Appeal No. 2000-2261
Application 08/730,670
At least with respect to the Figure 1, prior art embodiment,
in Denheyer we reverse the rejection of independent claim 1 and
its respective dependent claims 7 and 26, as well as the
rejection of the more specific features in independent claims 27
and 30.
In considering the Figure 3 embodiment, the actual
contribution of Denheyer to the art, we also reach a similar
conclusion. As noted by appellant at pages 9-12 of the principal
brief on appeal, the flow chart Figure 3 reflects the operation
of the circuit in Figure 2 of Denheyer. As is very clear from
the corresponding teachings of these figures at columns 3-5, we
note the specific discussion in the first half of column 5 that
only a single modulator 64 shown in Figure 2 is provided to
modulate both analog and digital input signals. Thus, we agree
with appellant's arguments in the noted pages of the principal
brief on appeal that Figure 3 does not disclose an analog
modulation means separate from the claimed quadrature modulating
means of independent claim 1 on appeal. Correspondingly, there
can therefore be no teaching of the required bypass operation set
forth in independent claim 1 on appeal according to the Figures 2
and 3 showings in Denheyer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007