Appeal No. 2005-0305
Application No. 09/855,132
appeal as being inherent in van Nee’s system since it is clear to
us from the fact that the reference plainly teaches that only
certain subcarriers X of the maximum number available in the set
N are actually used for the transmitting operations in the
mathematical transformation operations. The teaching of the
exclusion is clearly properly to be inferred by the reader-
artisan within van Nee’s teachings rather than an inherent
part of van Nee’s systems. On the other hand, we recognize
appellant’s argument at page 16 of the brief that van Nee does
not teach explicitly the mathematical exclusion of the type set
forth at the end of representative independent claim 1 on appeal.
The examiner’s remarks in the paragraph bridging pages
7 and 8 of the answer clearly implicitly recognize the teaching
value of van Nee where the examiner states in the examiner’s own
words that “[s]caling down the number of carriers clearly means
selecting only a certain number of carriers to use in the
modulation process; and scaling down unambiguously means that
non-selected carriers are not going to be included in the
modulation process.”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007