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