Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
We agree with the examiner that the noise signal in
Norman (Figure 2E) is a “random” noise pulse. Appellant’s
arguments (Brief, pages 6 and 7) to the contrary
notwithstanding, the claims on appeal do not preclude Norman’s
method of making a random noise determination.
Appellant’s argument (Brief, page 7) that “the system
described in the Norman patent does not enable an information
processing sub-system to operate if a random noise assessment
indicates that the digital signal does not comprise solely
random noise” is in error because Norman’s system is only
inhibited if a noise pulse is detected.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007