Appeal No. 2003-0593
Application 08/329,345
At the outset, we note that independent method claim 33
has a corresponding apparatus claim 49. Both of these claims
relate to the transmitter portion of the disclosed invention.
On the other hand, method independent claim 39 has a corres-
ponding apparatus version in claim 55. Both of these claims
relate to the receiver portion of the disclosed invention.
Method independent claim 44 has a corresponding apparatus
independent claim 60 which recite both the transmitter and
receiver portions, substantially identical to the respective
subject matter of independent claims 33, 39 or 49, 55,
respectively.
In this manner each independent claim requires essentially
the same corresponding subject matter as set forth in the
transmitter independent claims 33, 49. The lengthy preambular
portion of receiver independent claims 39, 55 recites the
subject matter of independent claims 33 and 49 relating to
the transmitter portion of appellant's disclosed invention.
If we assume for the sake of argument that Kim is properly
combinable with Baer and that Young is properly combined with
Baer within 35 U.S.C. 103, we agree with appellant's analysis
that the combination does not meet the generating a time advanced
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007