Appeal No. 2005-0305
Application No. 09/855,132
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellant’s positions, and to the answer for the examiner’s
positions.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 through 30 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, we do not agree with the
examiner’s assertions that the feature of a “discrete frequency
transformation” in the claims on appeal is indefinite or
otherwise unclear since we do not agree with the examiner’s basic
view that the quoted term is not described in the specification
as filed.
The initial portion of page 1 of the specification as filed
recognizes that Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM)
signals utilize prior art Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) and an
Inverse FFT (IFFT). Specification page 3 notes at lines 21 and
22 that the “encoder 12 [in figure 1] provides the encoded
data (via communication lines 13) to an Inverse Discrete
Fourier Transform (IDFT) engine 14 of the transmitter 10.”
Specification, page 4, line 17 through specification, page 5,
line 17, teaches that the present IDFT engine 14 differs from the
prior art IFFT in that the IDFT only performs mathematical
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007