Appeal No. 2005-0305
Application No. 09/855,132
through 57, that “[d]ecreasing the number of carriers N will
similarly lead to decreasing the width of the transmitted OFDM
power spectrum.” The discussion of figure 5, column 8, lines 19
through 27, makes it clear as well that selectively different
remote stations 74 may “send data on respectively different
numbers of carriers at the same time.” The discussion beginning
at line 41 of column 8 also indicates that transmitting
operations of the subsets of carriers may be asymmetric, with the
emphasis again on the transmittability indicating only that
certain ones of the subcarriers are actually used for the
transformation operations. Again, the discussion in the
paragraph at the beginning of column 9, line 24, indicates that
only a certain variable number of carriers is actually “used” for
transmitting operations.
We therefore do not agree with appellant’s arguments
presented in the brief that van Nee does not teach the exclusion
of mathematical operations that are associated with subcarriers
that are not assigned to modulate data. We also don’t agree with
the related argument that the exclusion of mathematical
operations is not implicit from the language of the above-noted
teachings in van Nee. It is unfortunate that the examiner has
chosen to characterize the exclusion feature of the claims on
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007