Appeal No. 96-3338
Application No. 08/442,253
Furuya et al. (Furuya) 4,541,093 Sep. 10, 1985
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Furuya.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
2 3
appellants, we make reference to the brief and answer for the details thereto.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 1-6 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-6.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Turning to the rejection of independent claim 1, we find that the Examiner has met
the burden of setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness in rejecting claim 1, but it has
been rebutted by appellants. The Examiner acknowledges that the Furuya patent does not
include a CCF and a CRC in a message. The Examiner states that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a
correction code into the header since it would be advantageous if an error were to arise.
2Appellants filed an appeal brief, January 29, 1996, (Paper No. 18). We will refer to this appeal
brief as simply the brief.
3The Examiner responded to the brief with an examiner's answer mailed April 26, 1996, (Paper No.
19). We will refer to this examiner's answer as simply the answer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007