Ex Parte Park et al - Page 2

              Appeal 2007-0466                                                                     
              Application 10/209,114                                                               
                                            OPINION                                                
                    We hold to our previous conclusion that Appellants failed to show              
              error in the rejection of the claims over the applied prior art.  Appellants’        
              briefs purported to show error in the rejection of claims found by the               
              Examiner to be anticipated by Nystrom (US 6,189,123 B1), with claim 26               
              being a representative claim in our review of the  102 rejection.                   
              Appellants’ Request does not show that we misapprehended or overlooked               
              anything in making our determinations, but instead appears to merely                 
              reargue points that we considered and addressed in the earlier decision.             
                    Notwithstanding the allegations on pages 2 and 3 of the Request,               
              Appellants seem to recognize that we expressly found that Nystrom                    
              determines the iterative decoding number (e.g., Y or Z) “according to the            
              channel condition.”                                                                  
                    The controller of Nystrom determines the iterative decoding                    
                    number at least in the sense of determining whether decoding is                
                    to be repeated a “Y” number of times or a “Z” number of times                  
                    (Fig. 5), according to the channel condition -- i.e., according to             
                    the quality of received transmissions (col. 11, ll. 17-25).                    
              (Decision 4, emphasis added.)                                                        
                    Appellants admit (Req. for Reh’g 4) that channel quality in Nystrom            
              relates to the success of decoding, as discussed by Nystrom at column 11,            
              lines 17 through 25.  Appellants go on, however, to suggest that if Nystrom          
              “analyzed” channel conditions to determine its numbers (Y or Z) it would             
              have said so.  As we indicated in the Decision, however, the fact that a             
              reference does not use the precise terminology of a claim under review is not        
              fatal to anticipation.  One skilled in the art would appreciate that the need for    
              further decoding steps directly relates to channel conditions, consistent with       

                                                2                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013