Wistron NeWeb USB400 WLAN USB Adapter User Manual ATCB Comments 02022003

Wistron NeWeb Corporation WLAN USB Adapter ATCB Comments 02022003

Contents

ATCB Comments 02022003

American Telecommunications Certification Body Inc. 6731 Whittier Ave, McLean, VA 22101 February 2, 2003 RE: Winston Ne Web FCC ID: NKRUSB400 I have a few comments on this Application. 1.) In the future, please segregate photographs into External and Internal exhibits. 2.) Although there are two oscillators listed on the block diagram, the diagram seems to not comply with the provisions of 2.1033(a)(5) where the signal path and frequency shall be listed at each block. Please review. 3.) Two manuals were uploaded. Which one should be used for review? I examined the most recent upload according to the date the files was created on our server. That one has references to 20cm separation distance between the user and device. This is not appropriate when a SAR report is presented. 4.) The Schematics reference an “Optional Populated” section. This is not appropriate. Only testing performed with and without the optional components could be accepted by the Commission for filing under a single FCC ID, or filing as a fully populated device only. 5.) The SAR report in Section 2.1 references an RF Pout of 87.09mW, but later in Section 3 references 30.7mW. Which is correct? Please review and correct as needed. 6.) In the SAR report, I am concerned with the interference of the lid in Mode 1. Please demonstrate this is the “worst case” position. In other words, please provide evidence that Mode 1 with the LCD lid of notebook computer perpendicular to phantom is not “worst case” relative to LCD lid parallel to phantom. 7.) Although listed elsewhere in the SAR report, it would be helpful to identify the test platform by make and model on each “Mode” photograph. 8.) The Mode Two plots in the SAR report appear strange – especially when using the scale supplied on the right hand side of each plot. Are you showing the highest SAR occurred in fields around the EUT, and not centered on the EUT? Please confirm. 9.) The Test Setup photos are difficult to use. Can you please supply a close up showing where the EUT was positioned in the setup? 10.) The Test Report does not provide any graphical presentations (plots) for any of the 15.247 parameters. This will not be acceptable. Please review and supply at minimum Occupied Bandwidth, Spectral Power Density, Band Edge (preferably both radiated and conducted), and 6dB Bandwidth. A plot of the Powerline Conducted Emissions 15.207 is also preferred. 11.) Please show how label identified in Appendix 9 of Test Report will be affixed to EUT. This does not seem to match the Label information provided in the Label and Location exhibit to AmericanTCB. William H. Graff President and Examining Engineer mailto: whgraff@AmericanTCB.com The items indicated above must be submitted before processing can continue on the above referenced application. Failure to provide the requested information may result in application termination. Correspondence should be considered part of the permanent submission and may be viewed from the Internet after a Grant of Equipment Authorization is issued.
l Page 2 February 2, 2003 Please do not respond to this correspondence using the email reply button. In order for your response to be processed expeditiously, you must submit your documents through the AmericanTCB.com website. Also, please note that partial responses increase processing time and should not be submitted. Any questions about the content of this correspondence should be directed to the sender.

Navigation menu