Appeal No. 2000-2261
Application 08/730,670
We must also reverse the rejection of independent claims 27
and 30 on appeal for similar reasons since each of these claims
also require both a quadrature modulator and an analog modulator.
Additionally, there is no showing in Figures 2 and 3 and no
teaching or suggestion at columns 3 through 5 of Denheyer of the
claimed selecting unit operating in the alternative to the
claimed combining unit, both of which respectively produce "a
modulating waveform" feeding the analog modulator at the end of
each these respective independent claims.
Therefore, since we reverse the rejection of independent
claim 1 on appeal, we must also reverse the rejection of its
respective dependent claims 7 and 26, as well as independent
claims 27 and 30 according to the Figure 3 embodiment of
Denheyer. As such, we have reversed the rejection of all these
claims based upon our consideration of the Figures 1 through 3
embodiments in Denheyer.
Lastly, we turn to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Nonami in view of
Denheyer. We also reverse the rejection of independent claim 1
and therefore its dependent claims 2, 6 and 7.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007