Appeal No. 2006-0406
Application 09/497,865
that the corresponding element can be used for transmission"
requires transmission instead of the intended use.
Claim 13 recites a step of "transmitting a transmit beam
using the corresponding element" and claim 30 recites a step of
"transmitting a transmit beam ... using the corresponding
waveguide," which positively recite a transmission step. Again
the claims do not preclude transmitting using all of the
radiation elements. For the reasons stated in the preceding
paragraph, we conclude that transmission using the element
corresponding to the strongest signal is taught by Aoki. The
rejection of claims 13 and 30 is affirmed.
Appellants argue that the cited references do not teach or
suggest the limitations of the particular dependent claim "in
association with the recitations of [the claim from which it
depends]." It is not apparent from this argument structure
whether appellants are relying on the patentability of the claim
from which the particular claim depends or are arguing that the
additional feature of the dependent claim is not taught. We find
that features of the dependent claims are taught by the
references. For example, appellants argue (Br6):
Claim 4 is also believed to be independently patentable
since claim 4 requires that the circuitry for forming
multiple digital beams does so through FFT techniques. The
cited references do not teach or suggest this in association
with the recitations of claim 1.
- 16 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007