Appeal No. 96-4001
Application 08/246,805
in the bi-phase encoding technique utilized in Appellant's invention, it is the number of transitions during
a bit period and not the polarity of the bit pattern that establishes the value of a bit. In Appellant's view,
therefore, the Examiner's conclusion that bit reversal results in polarity reversal lacks factual support on
the record.
After careful review of Appellant's arguments and the Blum reference we are in agreement with
Appellant's stated position in the Briefs. As can be seen from the illustration in Blum’s Figure 4 as well
as the description at column 6, line 62 through column 7, line 24 of Blum, a bi-phase encoding
technique is utilized by Blum just as in Appellant’s invention. The description in the above cited
passage from Blum confirms that, in bi-phase code, a “0" has a transition only at the end of the bit
period whereas a “1" has a transition within the bit period as well as at the end. As can also be seen by
reference to Figure 4 of Blum, although the bit pattern is reversed in order from “A” to “B”, the polarity
of the bits is not reversed. In other words, if bit pattern “A” is read from left to right, the “1" transitions
from high to low the same as the “1" in pattern “B” when read from right to left. It is clear then that,
contrary to the Examiner’s position with regard to Blum, a reversal of the order of bits does not
necessarily mean a reversal of polarity.
In conclusion, we are in agreement with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness since there is no teaching of record of polarity reversal of bits nor any
suggestion that a reversal of bit order will result in any such reversal of polarity. Conversely, there is no
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007