Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
jamming signal characteristics.” We disagree. From our review of Beesley, we
find that the characteristics of the jamming signal are considered when the
amplitude and the rate of arrival of the jamming signal are determined. Although
Beesley discloses determining a pulse rate of the jamming signal by determining
the rate of arrival, we find no teaching in either Shridhara or Beesley to identify a
pulse width of the jamming signal. We conclude that the prior art fails to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 14. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 14 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara
in view of Beesley.
We turn next to claim 15. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion (Br.
14) that Shridhara and Beesley do not disclose “creating the blanking signal based
upon the characteristic of the jamming signal.” From our review of the record, we
find that Shridhara creates a blanking signal based on the amplitude and rate of
arrival of the jamming signal (p. 2, ll. 36-38 and p. 3, ll. 104-107). Therefore, we
are in agreement with the Examiner that the teachings of Shridhara would have
suggested to an artisan the invention set forth in claim 15.
We conclude that the combined teachings of Shridhara and Beesley would
have suggested to an artisan the invention of claim 15, and are not convinced of
any error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 15 is sustained.
We turn next to claim 16. Because claim 16 recites subject matter analogous to
the subject matter recited in claim 6, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 for the
reasons we sustained the rejection of claim 6 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013