Appeal 2007-1481
Application 09/915,091
arrive at his determination that communication across a particular bandwidth
may commence. We construe Van De Berg’s decision to establish
communication once sufficient interference-free bandwidth has been
identified to meet the limitation of “produc[ing] a signal quality indication,”
because Van De Berg does not proceed with communication until the
appropriate number of interference-free channels have been detected. The
“indication” of “signal quality” in Van De Berg consists of the use of the
interference-free bandwidth. Finally, we read Van De Berg’s establishment
of communication, after identification of sufficient interference-free
bandwidth, as meeting the limitation of “selecting the plurality of frequency
bands for the desired wireless communication in response to the signal
quality indication.” We therefore find that Appellants have not carried their
burden of establishing error by the Examiner.
Appellants argue that Van De Berg does not anticipate claims 13 and
22, in that Van De Berg does not disclose bandwidth selection. Claim 13
recites “said band selection controller operable for selecting a bandwidth of
the at least one of the available frequency bands.” Claim 22 recites
“selecting a bandwidth of the frequency band.”
Appellants’ Specification describes band selector 34, which may
select a wide or narrow band channel for observation in response to user
input (Specification 9: 19-22). Appellants’ claims do not contain limitations
requiring the ability to change the width of the channel selected for
observation, nor requiring user input. Van De Berg discloses selection of a
carrier frequency for scanning (FF 6). Each carrier frequency position is a
narrow band channel (FF 10). Appellant refers to Van De Berg’s band
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013