Appeal No. 1999-1857
Application No. 08/579,156
Appellant argues that the combination does not teach or suggest the invention as
claimed. (See brief at page 9.) We disagree with appellant. Appellant argues that
Citta does not disclose the means for judging based upon the symbol timing lock signal.
(See brief at pages 9-10.) We agree with appellant, but the examiner relies upon the
teachings of Scarpa to teach a symbol timing lock signal and the combination of
references to teach/suggest the use of a symbol timing lock in determining the
presence of the appropriate processing. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the “claimed symbol timing lock signal does more than
generate symbol bit timing information based upon a sampling differential error, and
that the claimed symbol timing lock signal is fundamentally different from the symbol bit
timing information generated by Scarpa.” (See reply brief at page 2.) We disagree with
appellant. Appellant provides no express support for this argument in the language of
claim 1. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellant argues that the symbol
timing lock signal is generated based upon an analysis of past values of timing error or
an analysis of past values of the output filter. (See reply brief at page 2.) Again,
appellant provides no support in the express language of claim 1 to support this
argument. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellant cites to U.S. Patent
5,719,867 to Borazjani for support of the term “symbol timing lock signal.” (See reply
brief at page 2.) While this patent mentions the term, it does not define it as a standard
term in the art. Furthermore, this patent is not directed to the same field of endeavor of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007