Appeal No. 2006-2089
Application No. 09/778,291
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome
by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 24, as
well as dependent claims 2-5 and 13-16 not separately argued by
Appellant, is sustained.2
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 6-11, 17-23, and 25, grouped and argued together by
Appellant, based on the disclosure of Shenoi alone. We refer to
our earlier discussion of Shenoi and further find that, in
addition to determining the bandwidth requirement of a signal
path and applying an appropriate gain to the signal path, Shenoi
also discloses (column 8, lines 3-24) the determination of the
2
Although Appellant’s arguments focus on the contention that
the applied references lack a teaching of controlling gain of a
signal portion based on a determination of bandwidth requirement,
independent claims 12 and 18 merely require the separation of
signal paths “based upon at least one characteristic” and
applying a corresponding gain to the signal paths, a feature
disclosed by Shenoi at column 8, lines 3-24.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013