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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007