Appeal 2007-1481
Application 09/915,091
width as “predetermined” (Br. 10:8), but Appellants’ claims contain no
limitation describing when the width of any particular band is selected.
Because Van De Berg teaches selecting carrier frequency bands, one after
another, and selecting a bandwidth for each (albeit the same bandwidth),
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner’s rejection is in error.
Because Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in
holding claims 1, 13 and 22 to be anticipated by Van De Berg, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12-16, 18-20, 22,
24-26, 29, 30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) which have been grouped
together by Appellants, as well as the rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, 11, 17, 21,
23, 27, 28 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which Appellants have not
separately argued for patentability.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-32. Claims 1-3 and 5-32 are unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-32 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013