Appeal No. 2006-1882
Application No. 10/431,617
Appellants also argue at page 7 of the brief that claim 1 is patentable because
“[s]toring a SOC or SID code is not equivalent to ‘storing a history of [frequencies]’”
because “[a] SOC or SID code is simply not a frequency or frequency band.” We
disagree. Column 11, lines 29-35, of Raffel explicitly disclose, “the SOC or SID is
stored in memory … with the spectral location of the SOCs or SIDs control channel.”
We read “spectral location” as “frequency” as required by claim 1. We read column 10,
lines 48-51, as also teaching this storage operation.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 9-15 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of
Raffel does fully meet the invention as recited in claims 9-15. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 9, Appellants argue at page 8 of the brief, claim
9 is patentable because Raffel fails to disclose, “skipping a scan of frequencies listed in
the history …as recited in claim 9.” We disagree. Column 10, lines 56-62, of Raffel
explicitly disclose, “bands searched in the search routine … are removed from the
search schedule.”
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007