Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
a jamming signal by analyzing the stored correlator output signal and
synchronizing the blanking signal with the jamming signal based on the identified
characteristic. We conclude that the prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 9. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 9
under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.
We turn next to claim 10. Appellants (Br. 10-11) repeat their argument that
there is no reason to combine Shridhara and Beesley. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claim 10 for the reasons we sustained the rejection of claim 1 under
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.
We turn next to claim 11. Because claim 11 recites subject matter similar to
the subject matter recited in claim 2, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 for the
reasons we sustained the rejection of claim 2 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.
We turn next to claim 12. Because claim 12 recites subject matter similar to
the subject matter recited in claim 3, we sustain the rejection of claim 12 for the
reasons we sustained the rejection of claim 3 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.
We turn next to claim 13. Because claim 13 recites subject matter similar to
the subject matter recited in claim 5, we sustain the rejection of claim 13 for the
reasons we sustained the rejection of claim 5 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.
We turn next to claim 14. Appellants (Br. 13) assert that Shridhara and
Beesley do not disclose or suggest identifying a pulse rate and a pulse width of the
jamming signal. Appellants argue (Br. 13-14) that “Beesley fails to consider
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013