Appeal No. 2002-0992
Application No. 09/116,018
angle null 52, there is a small or a larger angular deviation, signals with interference
being eliminated by the injecting cancellation signal into the interfering signals received
along with the desired signal [answer, pages 6-7].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal for
essentially the reasons argued by appellant in the main brief. Talwar does not teach
the elimination of multiple access interference signals included in signals which are
received at the reception angle of the desired signal. Talwar teaches a system which
allows signals from the desired angle to be received but which cancels signals which
deviate from the desired angle. Thus, all signals from the desired angle are received in
Talwar. There is no cancellation of undesired signals, such as multiple access
interference signals, which arrive from the desired direction in Talwar. The multiple
access interference signals in claim 1 are signals which come from the same direction
as the desired signal. Signals which are detected from other angles are already
eliminated by eliminating an interference signal step of claim 1. Thus, we interpret
claim 1, and the other claims, as requiring that the multiple access interference signals
be signals which come from the same direction as the desired signal. With this
interpretation in mind, Talwar does not teach the final eliminating step of claim 1.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of the claims on
appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-12 and 16 is
reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007