Appeal No. 1996-2384
Application 08/226,225
arguing the Group B claims, appellant contends that this
feature is not taught by Souma (Brief at 9).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 30-35, 37-43,
45, 46, and 48-53 over Sugita in view of Souma
Because the § 102(b) rejection of claim 30 has been
affirmed, the § 103 rejection of that claim is also affirmed,
anticipation being the epitome of obviousness. In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982);
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974).
Appellant contends that the remaining Group B claims,
i.e., claims 31-35, 37-43, 45, 46, and 48-53, are patentable
over Sugita and Souma because in Souma "there is no suggestion
of providing multiple control bit groups" (Brief at 9). This
feature is disclosed by Sugita for the reasons given above in
the discussion of the § 102(b) rejection.
Regarding the Group C claims, i.e., claims 34, 35, 37,
38, 45, and 53, appellant argues: "These claims include the
use of a group synchronization bit, whose value is the same
for the repeated groups of a packet, but is different for
other packets. This feature is useful, because it enables
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007