Appeal No. 2002-1232
Application No. 09/102,885
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Strolle in view of Werner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 6, mailed Dec. 6, 2000) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9,
mailed Jun. 19, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellants’ brief (Paper No. 8, filed Mar. 30, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 10, filed
Jul. 3, 2001) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that independent claims 1, 6, 11, 13, and 16 recite that the
demodulator produces a baseband signal and that the adaptive equalizer produces an
equalized baseband signal. (See brief at page 3.) Appellants argue that Strolle
specifically teaches the use of a passband adaptive equalizer which does not teach or
suggest the use of a baseband equalizer. (See brief at page 3.) The examiner
maintains that the baseband signal is not easily recovered and that is the reason that
the passband or near baseband signal is used. (See final rejection at pages 2-3 and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007