Appeal No. 2006-2089
Application No. 09/778,291
Appellant’s arguments (Brief, pages 10-20; Reply brief,
pages 2-5) focus on the contention that Shenoi does not make up
for the deficiencies of Shapiro in disclosing the gain adjustment
of a portion of a signal path based on a determination of the
bandwidth requirement of a signal path. We simply find no error,
however, in the Examiner’s finding, as articulated at pages 4 and
11-15 of the Answer, that Shenoi does disclose the control of the
gain of a signal portion based on a bandwidth requirement. We
further find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion (Answer, page
4) that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated
and found it obvious to apply the gain control/bandwidth
determination features taught by Shapiro to the system of Shenoi
in order to maximize the amount of information transmitted over a
channel as taught by Shapiro.
With respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 24, we also
make the observation, from our own independent review of the
disclosure of Shenoi, that, in our view and Appellant’s arguments
to the contrary notwithstanding, Shenoi in fact discloses the
gain control of a signal portion based on a determination of the
bandwidth requirements of the signal path associated with the
signal portion as presently claimed. For example, as disclosed
at column 8, lines 3-24 and illustrated in Figure 4, Shenoi
discloses the monitoring and the control of the gain of the
separated upstream and downstream signal channels which have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013