Appeal No. 2006-0406 Application 09/497,865 differences in what the claims cover is not a separate argument for patentability. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). Appellants have not separately argued independent claims 21, 30, or 37 and these claims should stand or fall together with claim 1. As to independent claims 7 and 13, appellants state that these claims are allowable for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 (Br7) and, thus, they normally would be treated as standing or falling together with claim 1. However, because of a claim interpretation issue, we group claims 1, 7, 21, and 37 in one group and claims 13 and 30 in another group. The arguments as to the dependent claims are generally of the form of describing what the claim recites and then stating that the cited references do not teach or suggest this limitation "in association with the recitations of [the claim from which it depends]." This seems to be a denial that the references teach the feature of the dependent claim. However, appellants do not address the teachings of the references. The dependent claims will be briefly addressed. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-18, 21, 22, and 25-37 The examiner finds that Karlsson discloses an antenna mounted for scanning in the azimuth and elevation direction, but does not disclose the circuitry (FR2). The examiner finds that Chiba teaches the advantages of digital beam forming (DBF) (FR2). The examiner finds that Chang describes a specific DBF technique - 5 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007