Ex Parte Chang et al - Page 5



          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