Appeal 2007-1280
Application 10/894,950
46 and 48 in figure 3, which are discussed in general terms in the paragraph
bridging column 4 and 5 relied upon by the Examiner. As revealed at
column 5, lines 8 through 12, the functionality of the circuit in figure 4
reduces noise in an optical decoder environment to correctly discriminate
between a logical 1 and a logical 0.
In view of the foregoing, and to the extent argued by the Appellants in
the Brief and Reply Brief, the subject matter of independent claims 1, 9, 21,
and 22 would have been readily appreciated as being obvious from an
artisan’s perspective as well as the subject matter of dependent claims 19
and 20 argued in the first and fourth stated rejections. The initial discussion
in this opinion with respect to Lenormand addresses the two networks
recited in independent claims 21 and 22. Of note here is Appellants’
admission at page 3 of the Reply Brief that Harres teaches distinguishing
between a logical 0 and a logical 1 but continues to argue the conversion
from optical to electrical and back to optical before transmitting is not taught
in Harres. This feature is taught in Lenormand as argued by the Examiner
and further amplified by us earlier in this opinion. This conversion is not
recited in dependent claim 19, for example, but in its parent independent
claim 1.
Turning to the second stated rejection regarding dependent claim 2,
Appellants make what is somewhat of a unique argument at page 10 of the
principal Brief on appeal that the additional prior art relied upon by the
Examiner to Wiedeman and Grybos do not teach or suggest the elements
missing from claim 2, including the plurality of network satellites and
gateway satellites disposed adjacent to the network. These are features
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013