Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
set forth varying techniques of applying FSK/PSK modulation
techniques to a periodic signal and then using the modulated
periodic signal to modulate the driving signal.
Accordingly, since, even if combined, the collective teachings
of Carroll and McFarlane would not satisfy the claimed limitations,
a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established, and,
therefore, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 14-17,
61, and 64-68 based on the combination of Carroll and McFarlane is
not sustained.
In summary, we have not sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 20-24, nor the 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 32 and 72 based on Waraksa.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 36-40
based on Buchele, we have sustained the rejections of claims 36 and
39, but have not sustained the rejections of claims 37, 38, and 40.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 70, 71,
and 73-80 based on Carroll, we have sustained the rejection of
claims 70, 71, and 75, but have not sustained the rejection of
claims 73, 74, and 76-80. We also have not sustained the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 41, and 43 based on the
combination of Chatelot and Kurusu, nor the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
30
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007