Appeal No. 95-1901
Application 08/088,397
1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
Appellants argue on pages 4 through 9 of the brief that
neither Milheiser, Setoguchi, Aggers, Lichtenberger nor
Schwendeman teaches or suggests a second bit interval of the
biphase state bit which is equal to the bit period of the other
biphase bits. We note that all of the independent claims, claims
15, 19 and 22, recite this limitation. In particular, claim 15
recites "said start bit being distinguished from the other
biphase bits in that the second bit interval of the biphase start
bit is equal to the bit period of the other biphase bits."
Furthermore, claims 19 and 22 recite "said biphase start bit
being distinguished from the other biphase bits in that the
second bit interval of the biphase start bit is equal to the bit
period of the other biphase bits."
Upon a careful review of the references, we fail to find
that these references teach or or would have suggested a start
bit being distinguished from the other biphase bits in that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007