Appeal No. 2001-0603
Application 09/028,063
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 13, 15, 19 and 20 as being
unpatentable over Green in view of Baghdady under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Now we turn to the rejection of claims 17 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tong in view of
Baghdady. The Examiner states that Tong discloses direction
finding equipment using phase difference components. However,
Tong does not disclose detection of spectrally spread signal and
the problems encountered in detecting these types of signals.
See page 4 of the Examiner’s answer. Similar to the above
rejection, the Examiner argues that Baghdady teaches a method
detecting spectrally spread signals and it would be obvious to
combine this teaching with Tong to obtain Appellant’s claimed
invention. See page 4 of the Examiner’s answer.
Appellant argue that as was the case with Green, Tong is not
directed to determining the direction of arrival of a traveling
spectrally spread signal wavefront. Appellant agues that there
would have been no motivation or suggestion for one skilled in
the art to have combined the features of the anti-jamming
circuitry of Baghdady with the direction finding equipment of the
Tong. See page 8, of the Appellant’s brief.
We note that Appellant’s claim 17 recite “[a]n apparatus for
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007