Ex Parte Beisner - Page 2

               Appeal 2007-1083                                                                        
               Application 09/847,093                                                                  

          1          Claim 8 is representative of the invention and reads as follows:                  
          2                                                                                            
          3          8. A communication system comprising a radio transmitter                          
          4          transmitting a signal which is interfered with by fixed reflectors                
          5          and moving reflectors, said system comprising an antenna, a                       
          6          receiver and a multipath reduction subsystem comprising an                        
          7          analog to digital converter, a real to complex converter, a                       
          8          whitening filter with complex coefficients and a multipath                        
          9          canceller comprising an array of complex delay-Doppler shift                      
         10          coefficients, delayers of one sample and shifters of one                          
         11          frequency increment, said array producing a residual from                         
         12          which the interferences from said fixed reflectors and said                       
         13          moving reflectors have been removed, said multipath canceller                     
         14          comprising a minimizer minimizing the mean square of said                         
         15          residual over the said whitening filter coefficients and the said                 
         16          multipath canceller delay-Doppler coefficients, said subsystem                    
         17          comprising a spectrum restoring filter utilizing the said                         
         18          whitening filter coefficients restoring said original signal                      
         19                                                                                            
         20          The Examiner objects to the disclosure under 37 C.F.R. § 1.71. (See               
         21    Final Rejection pp. 3-6.)  The Examiner asserts (Answer 4) that the                     
         22    Specification is so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of              
         23    the prior art.  The reasoning by the Examiner is that it is unclear as to how           
         24    the invention can be made or used.  (Final Rejection 4.)  The reasoning                 
         25    provided by the Examiner in both the Final Rejection and the Answer                     
         26    implies or suggests that the disclosure is non-enabling and/or lacking written          
         27    description.  The examples given by the Examiner are that there is no                   
         28    discussion of how the filter weights are calculated or applied.  The Examiner           
         29    contends (Final Rejection 4) that it is unclear where the removal of the                
         30    multi-path is discussed.  The Examiner additionally contends that the                   
         31    receiving and sampling of the signal is discussed, but that it is unclear as to         

                                                  2                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013