Appeal No. 2005-0305
Application No. 09/855,132
operations that are associated with the assigned subcarriers and
does not perform such mathematical operations that are associated
with unassigned subcarriers. Moreover, appellant’s argued
teachings at specification, page 9, lines 19 through 25,
essentially define DFT and IDFT as respectively Discrete
Frequency Transformations and Inverse Discrete Frequency
Transformations consistent with the above noted teachings which
modify well known FFT and IFFT transforms of the prior art.
It is thus apparent to us that the disclosure as filed
clearly is not indefinite as argued by the examiner and is clear
to the artisan since it builds upon what is known in the prior
art. That a “discrete frequency transformation” may refer either
to a DFT or an IDFT does not render the claims indefinite for
reciting Discrete Frequency Transformations in a general sense
by the mere use of the alternative since the artisan clearly can
reasonably determine the metes and bounds (the limit being two
choices) of the nature of the claimed subject matter based upon
the disclosure and the artisan’s own understanding of the prior
art. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
1 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007