Appeal No. 1996-3081
Application No. 08/156,544
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of the
remainder of the claims on appeal, appellant and the examiner
both agree that Schulz is directed to an averaging technique
for correcting errors in a digital television signal
environment, and Dillon is directed to a majority vote
technique for correcting errors in a cellular radiotelephone
environment (Brief, pages 3 and 4; Answer page 3).
Notwithstanding the major differences between the two error
correcting techniques, the examiner nevertheless concluded
that the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to
implement the majority selection method [of Dillon] in the
system of Schulz et al as an alternative method of reducing
noise in the digital data” (Answer, pages 3 and 4). In the
absence of evidence in the record or a convincing line of
reasoning by the examiner, we agree with appellant’s3
arguments (Brief, pages 3 and 4) that the two “alternative”
error correcting techniques are not mere “alternative” methods
of reducing noise. In short, the rejection of claims 1, 3
3The reference to Lowry (U.S. Patent No. 4,107,736) is
not in the statement of the rejection, and it will not be
considered by the Board (Answer, pages 4 and 5). In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342, 166 USPQ 406, 407 (CCPA 1970).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007