Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 47 and 57 based on the Carroll
reference, we have reconsidered our original decision in light of
Appellants’ comments in the Request for Rehearing, and we find no
error therein. We, therefore, decline to make any changes in our
prior decision which affirms these rejections for the reasons
which follow.
Regarding claim 70, Appellants contend (Request, pages 4-6)
that our earlier decision erred in concluding that Carroll’s
generated alternating magnetic field has a bit-timing clock
signal embedded therein. According to Appellants, the output of
Carroll’s element 58 does not contain a bit-timing clock signal
and, further, there is no bit-timing clock signal generated in
the controller 10. We do not find this persuasive. We find no
error in the Examiner’s line of reasoning that concluded that the
output of Carroll’s element 58 which provides a clock signal
input to timing control 60 has embedded therein a bit-timing
clock signal as claimed. It is noteworthy that Appellants admit
(id., at 5) that the output of Carroll’s divide-by-64 timing
control element 60 is a bit-timing control signal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007