Appeal No. 96-3234
Application 08/184,446
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984). Finally, the Federal Circuit states that
"[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Upon a careful review of the admitted prior art and
Ozaki, we fail to find that either of these references teaches
or suggests the above claim limitations as recited in
Appellant's independent claims 1 and 3. Neither the admitted
prior art nor Ozaki recognizes the problem of saving memory
due to the fact that only one bit needs to be stored and the
de-interleaving of the data being received. Furthermore,
neither reference teaches or suggests a writing/reading
control signal generating unit which allows the m-bit data to
be stored in a first memory and the n-bit pointer to be stored
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007