Appeal No. 1997-0624
Application No. 08/303,556
claim 5, and we agree with the examiner that Eizenhöfer anticipates the language of claim
5.
Appellants argue that Eizenhöfer does not teach that information can be added to
the channel to mitigate interference between channels. (See Brief at page 9 with respect
to Group II.) This argument is not persuasive since the examiner has indicated that subject
matter clearly setting forth the addition of signals to the channels, such as an odd/even bit
as in claim 10, would be allowable.
Clearly, the examiner has provided a discussion of the claimed invention as it
relates to the applied reference and given corresponding discussions in the text of the
reference. We find that the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of anticipation and
that appellants have not rebutted the prima facie case by showing insufficient evidence of
the prima facie case of anticipation. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2
and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2 and 4-8 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007