Appeal No. 2006-2089
Application No. 09/778,291
approximate length of the signal path. Further, since Shenoi
discloses, at the very least, the separation of signal paths,
i.e., downstream and upstream paths, dependent on bandwidth
requirement, the claimed requirement (claims 6 and 25) of
separating signal paths in response to “at least one of” signal
path length, bandwidth requirement, and gain factor is satisfied.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of all of the claims on appeal. Therefore,
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(effective September 13, 2004).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013