Appeal No. 1996-3081
Application No. 08/156,544
The obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, 9
through 15, 17 through 20, 22 through 26, 28 through 35 and 37
through 39 is sustained as to claims 7, 9 through 11, 26 and
28 through 31, and is reversed as to claims 1, 3 through 6, 12
through 15, 17 through 20, 22 through 25, 32 through 35 and 37
through 39.
Appellant argues that neither Schulz nor Dillon discloses
“binary cyclic signals” (Brief, page 4). While there is some
question as to whether the digital “picture points” disclosed
by Schulz (Figure 1) are “binary cyclic” signals, there is no
doubt that the three digital data words disclosed by Dillon
(Figure 5) are “binary cyclic” signals when mapped cyclically
with “1" being the high portion of the signal, and “0" being
the low portion of the signal. The artisan is guided by
skill, and not stupidity. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743,
226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, appellant’s
arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the
digital data words in Dillon in “binary cyclic” signal form.
Turning to the method and system of claims 7 and 26,
respectively, we find that these claims are not limited to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007