Appeal No. 1997-3850 Page 6
Application No. 08/355,973
indicative and optimal samples, respectively. The examiner
attempts to show that the inverse relation, C/I, i.e., ratio of
desired components to undesired components, is equal to Eb/No.
What is not clear from the examiner’s explanation is why the
desired components C, of Birchler are held to be equivalent to
Eb and why the undesired components, I, of Birchler are held to
be the equivalent to No. The examiner does not explain and, it
should be noted, appellants do not contradict this analysis in
their reply brief. The examiner does attach an appendix, a
section of a Digital Communications text by Bernard Sklar, to
the answer but there is no explanation in the answer as to the
purpose of this attachment. Accordingly, we have not
considered this attachment.
In any event, we do not find the examiner’s rationale as
to why Birchler’s ratio of I/C is inversely proportional to
Eb/No to be persuasive and fail to find, within the disclosure
of either Birchler reference, the claimed calculation of the
ratio between the number of erroneous samples and the total
number of samples received wherein the ratio is inversely
proportional to Eb/No.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007