Appeal No. 2001-0603
Application 09/028,063
arrival information may have become masked with the spreading of
the signal over the spectrum. See pages 5 and 6 of the
Appellant’s brief.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation or reason to
combine the Green and Baghdady. Appeellant points out that Green
is not directed to determining the direction of the arrival of a
traveling spectrally spread signal wavefront. Appellant points
out that Baghdady is directed to detecting a signal in the
presents of signals having arbitrary modulation for the use of
anti-jamming circuitry. See pages 6 and 7 of the Appellant’s
brief. Appellant argues that Green and Baghdady, either
individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest
Appellant’s claimed invention of detecting the direction of
arrival of an instant wavefront where the constituents of the
signal itself mask the direction of the arrival of information.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In addition, claims are to be interpreted
as the terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007