Appeal No. 1996-3081
Application No. 08/156,544
portions in the cyclic signal to provide sampled portions,
each of said sampled portions having corresponding portions in
respective cycles of the cyclic signal;
comparing the each of the sampled portions of each cycle
with other of the sampled portions of other cycles and
determining the logic state of the majority of the compared
ones of the sampled portions, said other cycles having a
predetermined temporal relationship to said cycle in each
comparison; and
generating a reconstructed signal corresponding to the
corrupt cyclic signal wherein the logic state of each of the
sampled portions is forced to correspond to the determined
logic state of the majority decision in the step of comparing.
The references relied on by the examiner to reject the
claims on appeal are:
Schulz et al. (Schulz) 4,464,674 Aug. 7,
1984
Dillon et al. (Dillon) 5,241,548 Aug. 31,
1993
(filed May 23, 1991)
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 15, 17 through 20, 22
through 26, 28 through 35 and 37 through 39 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz in
view of Dillon.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007