Appeal No. 96-0309
Application 08/135,370
claimed invention. A patent need not teach, and preferably
omits, what is well known in the art. Paperless Accounting,
804 F.2d at 664, 231 USPQ at 652. The examiner's position
that appellants should not be entitled to rely on the cited
references which were not mentioned in the original disclosure
to show enablement (EA5-6), is not persuasive: appellants can
rely on extrinsic evidence to show what was known to those of
ordinary skill in the art. We also agree with appellants'
arguments (Br8) that the selection of the particular encoding
and interleaving technique is within the level of one of
ordinary skill in the communication art based on the nature of
the subscriber device and the characteristics of the
transmission medium.
As to the location of the encoding, interleaving,
deinterleaving, and decoding means, appellants argue that
"[c]learly, coding and interleaving are completed before
multiplexing, as such occurs" (Br7). The examiner states that
this is not persuasive because interleaving before
multiplexing is not disclosed (EA5). The specification
indicates that error correction codes and time interleaving
take place before multiplexing (specification, page 4,
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007