Ex Parte AYLWARD - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-1689                                                        
          Application No. 08/796,285                                 Page 2           


               30.  Decoding apparatus comprising,                                    
               a first decoder having a first input for receiving a first             
          transmitted signal and a second input for receiving a second                
          transmitted signal, a first output for normally providing a first           
          output signal, a second output for normally providing a second              
          output signal and a third output for normally providing a third             
          output signal, and                                                          
               a second decoder having a first input for normally receiving           
          a first transmitted signal coupled to the first output of said              
          first decoder, a second input for normally receiving a second               
          transmitted signal coupled to the second output of said first               
          decoder, a first output for providing a second first output                 
          signal, a second output for providing a second second output                
          signal and a third output for providing a second third output               
          signal.                                                                     

               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                   
          examiner in rejecting appealed claim 30 is:                                 
          Embree                   5,642,423           June 24, 1997                  
               Claims 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second              
          paragraph, as being indefinite.                                             
               Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being             
          anticipated by Embree.                                                      
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,            
          we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 22, mailed            
          June 5, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of           
          the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 21, filed               








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007