Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754
the context of meaning of the use of these concepts. Essentially, they relate to the
same teachings appellants’ specification has prospectively made as just noted, as well
as the earlier-noted teachings in Fazel of various types of modulation schemes and
uses we have pointed out earlier in this opinion. With respect to a particular choice of
level 5 or 4 as recited in claims 21 and 22, respectively, in addition to the respective
ranges noted there, we agree with the examiner’s view that it would have be obvious
to have optimized the choice of levels (result effective variables) in these respective
ranges for a given environment of use to the extent noted in the answer.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s rejections of various claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007