Appeal No. 2004-2153
Application No. 09/923,510
contemplates frequency division multiplexing as the general
mechanism for encoding data/information to be communicated by
laser beams over the free-space links (24) therein and provides
reasons why this form of multiplexing is desirable. Because of
this, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art
considering the teachings of Reichman along with those in
Willebrand pointed to by the examiner would not have been led to
make a wholesale substitution of time division multiplexing for
the frequency division multiplexing used in Willebrand’s laser
communication system.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
in the prior art specifically relied upon by the examiner would
not have made the subject matter as a whole of independent claims
9 and 22 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellants’ invention, we must refuse to sustain the
examiner’s rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). It
follows that the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 10, 12,
13, 14 and 23 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the basis of
those same teachings in the prior art will likewise not be
sustained.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007