Appeal No. 2006-2089
Application No. 09/778,291
different bandwidth requirements. This gain control compensates
for the attenuation in the 6000 feet of cable length at the
middle band frequency of each channel, i.e., 600kHz for the
downstream channel and 27 kHz for the upstream channel. In other
words, the gain for each of the downstream and upstream channels
is adjusted based on a characteristic (a cable attenuation
characteristic in Shenoi’s particular fact situation) of the
required frequency bandwidth for each channel, i.e., 20 kHz to
80kHz for the upstream channel and 160kHz to 1.1 MHz for the
downstream channel. In view of the above discussion and analysis
of the disclosure of the Shenoi reference, it is our opinion
that, although we found no error in the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Shenoi and Shapiro as discussed supra, the Shapiro
reference is not necessary for a proper rejection of independent
claims 1, 12, and 24 since all of the claimed elements are in
fact present in the disclosure of Shenoi. A disclosure that
anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529,
220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re Fracalossi,
681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013