Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
Norman 4,063,180 Dec. 13,
1977
Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Norman.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 7 is sustained.
The examiner’s grounds of rejection (Answer, page 4)are
as follows:
Norman discloses an information processing
subsystem (data processing channel 34); a noise
likelihood determination subsystem (delay pulse &
command generator and noise detector 18,22) for
receiving signal and for generating an inhabit [sic,
inhibit] signal (random noise assessment) to
indicate that the pulse (signal) is noise and to
inhabit [sic, inhibit] a data processing channel
from processing the pulse (signal) as claimed in
claim 1 (see fig. 1, the abstract and column 3, line
65 to column 4, line 2). Regarding the particular
limitation i.e. the A/D converter (transducer), such
limitation is well known in the art of
communications and would have been obvious lacking
any criticality or showing by applicant.
In response to appellant’s arguments that the “Norman
patent merely distinguishes between different types of pulses,
in particular, a start pulse and a noise pulse, not between
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007