Appeal No. 1997-2380
Application No. 08/121,809
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 14 is
reversed.
Gould discloses an error detection system for a discrete
receiver (Figure 5). A re-encoded signal received by the
receiver (Figure 4A) and an encoded signal received by the
receiver (Figure 4B) are compared (Figure 4C) to detect errors
in the received signal. “When portions of the re-encoded
signal differ too greatly from the actual, received signal, a
bad frame indication is generated” (Abstract). “When a bad
frame indication is generated, the entire frame is ignored by
the receiver” (column 9, lines 28 and 29).
The examiner acknowledges (Answer, page 3) that “Gould
does not specifically disclose the erasing of a bad frame,”
and that “Gould does not explicitly . . . disclose the use of
two thresholds employed in the determining of bad frames.”
Notwithstanding the lack of such teachings in Gould, the
examiner concludes that “it is well known in the art to erase
such frames when they are determined to be bad” (Answer, page
3), and that “increasing the threshold once an error is
detected is well known within the art” (Answer, page 5).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007