Appeal No. 2001-0588
Application No. 08/609,308
With regard to claims 6-8, appellant makes the same argument, supra, with
regard to the references not disclosing a second output frequency “operable for mixing
with an RF waveform.” For the reasons enunciated supra, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 6-8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to independent claim 12, appellant argues that since Hashimoto
discloses an output frequency of 5kHZ, artisans would have understood that a
frequency of 5kHZ would not be a teaching of an IF source since “an IF source of 5kHZ
would, inter alia, generate image signals which could not be removed by filtering in that
the bandwidth of the filters would be so narrow as to be practically unrealizable” [brief-
page 14].
In view of the fact that appellant argues that the low frequency (5MHz) of
Hashimoto would not constitute an IF source, and the instant specification indicates that
IF sources are “typically in the 40 MHZ to 300 MHZ range” [specification-page 1],
together with a lack of any convincing argument or response from the examiner on this
point, although the examiner does agree that Hashimoto discloses an output frequency
of 5MHz, we hold that appellant’s IF source must be between 40MHz and 300MHz and
that Hashimoto clearly does not teach this range.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007