Appeal No. 2005-0305
Application No. 09/855,132
performing the discrete frequency transformation on the
data to modulate the data; and
excluding from the transformation mathematical
operations associated with the subcarriers not assigned to
modulate the data.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
van Nee 6,175,550 Jan. 16, 2001
Böhnke 6,535,501 Mar. 18, 2003
(filed Nov. 5, 1998)
Claims 1 through 30 stand rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The basis of this rejection is the
examiner’s view that the limitation “discrete frequency
transformation” is unclear because it is not described in the
specification or well known in the art.
Claims 1 through 8, 10 through 18, 20 through 28 and 30
stand rejected over prior art. As to claims 1 through 7, 10
through 17, 20 through 27 and 30, the examiner has rejected these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by van Nee.1
A separately stated rejection of dependent claims 8, 18 and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relies upon van Nee in view of Böhnke.
1The bottom of page 2 of the answer indicates the examiner
has withdrawn the rejection of claims 9, 19 and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007