Appeal No. 2005-0305
Application No. 09/855,132
We are equally unpersuaded by appellant’s arguments
presented in the reply brief at pages 2 and 3. The above noted
teachings clearly traverse appellant’s arguments here because it
is clear to the reader-artisan that the X-point IFFT operations
in van Nee are based on N subcarriers as the maximum number of
the set available from which a subset of X is chosen. As
emphasized in our earlier remarks, the claimed “set of
subcarriers” is not limited to X, but is in fact plainly taught
to be N from which a subset X is dynamically scalably used.
In view of the foregoing, we have reversed the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 30 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. On the other hand, we have sustained the
selective rejections of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 18, 20
through 28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007